"On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" --- Text Excerpts And Video Highlights From The 1986 Television Docu-Trial
David Von Pein
aired a two-part, five-and-a-half-hour special program -- "ON TRIAL:
LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- which represented a first-of-its-kind JFK
assassination "mock" courtroom trial, with the accused assassin of
President John F. Kennedy as the defendant. (There was no actor used
to play the now-deceased Oswald, however; the defendant's chair was
left empty during the trial.)
A real sworn-in jury of twelve Dallas citizens was flown to London,
England, to sit in judgment of the man whom the Warren Commission (22
years earlier) had deemed guilty of killing President Kennedy and
Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963.
An actual judge was also used in the 1986 "Docu-Trial", and two of the
finest lawyers in America were employed to serve as the attorneys in
this important landmark case. Highly-successful defense lawyer Gerry
Spence of Wyoming acted in defense of his "client" (Oswald); and
Spence had not lost a case in front of a jury in the last 17 years
leading up to the LHO mock trial.
Former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi served as
the lawyer for the prosecution (representing the "U.S. Government").
Bugliosi had a nearly-perfect 105-1 record in felony jury trials while
employed with the L.A. DA's office.
Many of the actual witnesses surrounding the assassination of JFK were
called to the witness stand during the trial, as well as police
officers, photo and medical experts, and members of the HSCA panel who
investigated the case in the late 1970s.
The end result of the 21-hour-long Docu-Trial (which was edited down
to 5.5 hours for the "Showtime" TV broadcast) was a "Guilty" verdict
being reached by the jury, with Oswald pronounced guilty of murdering
both John Kennedy and Officer Tippit.
Below I've typed out some verbatim excerpts from this fascinating
court proceeding known as "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD". These
excerpts provide a pretty good example of the massive amount of
evidence that Mr. Bugliosi had to work with as he successfully
attempted, albeit in mock-trial form only, to convict Lee Oswald for
the two murders Oswald so obviously committed on 11/22/63 in Dallas,
Texas......
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S OPENING STATEMENT TO THE JURY:
"Mr. Spence, Judge Bunton, ladies and gentlemen of the jury -- I don't
have to tell you that you have been called upon to sit on the jury of
perhaps the most important murder case ever tried in this country.
In any political assassination, ladies and gentlemen, almost as
inevitably as death and taxes, there is always a chorus of critics
screaming the word 'conspiracy' before the fatal bullet has even come
to rest.
The evidence that will be presented at this trial will show that there
is no substance to the persistent charge by these critics that Lee
Harvey Oswald was just a patsy, set up to take the fall by some
elaborate conspiracy.
We expect the evidence -- ALL of the evidence -- to show that Lee
Harvey Oswald, acting alone, was responsible for the assassination of
John F. Kennedy.
We expect the defense -- in an anemic effort to deflect suspicion away
from Mr. Oswald -- to offer theory, speculation, conjecture, but not
one speck of credible evidence that any other person or group murdered
President Kennedy and framed Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder that
they committed. As this trial unfolds, you will see how utterly
preposterous the allegation of a frame-up is.
The evidence at this trial will produce a vivid, and a rather stark,
psychological portrait of Oswald as a deeply-disturbed and maladjusted
man. It will show him to be a fanatical Marxist, who restlessly
searched for a country to embody the Marxist dream.
The evidence will show that on the morning of the assassination --
November the 22nd, 1963 -- Oswald carried his weapon, a 6.5-millimeter
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, into his place of employment at the Texas
School Book Depository Building. The Presidential motorcade was
scheduled to pass right in front of that building that very noon.
At 12:30 PM, as the President's limousine drove slowly by, three shots
rang out from the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor of that
building....one of which penetrated President Kennedy's upper-right
back, exited the front of his throat....another entering the right-
rear of his head, and exiting and shattering the right-frontal area of
his head.
As the Presidential limousine screeched away to Parkland Memorial
Hospital, where he was pronounced dead -- the President, his life
blood gushing from his body, lay mortally wounded in his wife
Jacqueline's lap.
Within minutes of the assassination, Oswald's rifle was found on the
same sixth floor -- the floor from which Oswald had brutally cut down,
at the age of only forty-six, the thirty-fifth President of these
United States.
The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy.
The evidence will further show that just forty-five minutes after the
assassination, Oswald, in frantic flight from what he had just done,
shot and killed Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit....running from the
scene of the murder to a theater, where he was arrested and subdued
after drawing his revolver on one of the arresting officers.
Much more evidence, ladies and gentlemen, much more, will be produced
at this trial irresistibly connecting Oswald and no other person or
group to the assassination.
I have every confidence that after you folks fairly and objectively
evaluate all of the evidence in this case you will find that Lee
Harvey Oswald, and Lee Harvey Oswald alone, was responsible for the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen."
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
SELECTED WITNESS TESTIMONY:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was
carrying the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER (Oswald's co-worker; he drove LHO to work on
11/22/63 and watched Lee carry a paper package into the Book
Depository that morning) -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to
his body."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his
body....on the right side?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I
think you've said that in the past."
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Boone, did the FBI ever show you a rifle which
they said was the rifle found on the sixth floor?"
EUGENE BOONE (Dallas County Deputy Sheriff who discovered a rifle in
the TSBD on 11/22/63) -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what did you say when you looked at that rifle?"
MR. BOONE -- "It appears to be the rifle that I saw on the sixth floor
of the School Book Depository."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Well, didn't you just tell Mr. Spence that you could
not identify it?"
MR. BOONE -- "I could not identify it positively because I did not
have an identifying mark on the weapon."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. But it appeared to be the same rifle?"
MR. BOONE -- "It appeared to be the same weapon."
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "What was the conclusion your panel came to as to how
many bullets struck the President, their point of entry, and the path
they took through the President's body?"
DR. CHARLES PETTY (one of 9 forensic pathologists who served on the
autopsy panel {aka the "FPP"} for the HSCA) -- "My conclusion, and the
conclusion of the panel, was that the President was struck by two
bullets -- one entering the right-upper back and exiting in the front
of the neck; the other entering the right back of the head, and
exiting what we call the right-frontal area, that is the front and
side of the head."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Is there any doubt in your mind, Doctor, whatsoever
that both bullets that struck the President came from the rear and no
bullets struck him from the front?"
DR. PETTY -- "None whatsoever."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Let me ask you this, Dr. Petty .... assuming the
President HAD been struck by a bullet from the front -- make that
assumption -- could the transference of momentum from that bullet have
thrown the President backward as is shown in frames 315 to 320 of the
Zapruder Film?"
DR. PETTY -- "No sir, not in my opinion."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And why is that?"
DR. PETTY -- "Because the head is too heavy. There's too much muscular
resistance to movement."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the killings that people see on television and in
the movies, which is the only type of killings most people ever see,
where the person struck by the bullet very frequently, visibly, and
dramatically is propelled backward by the force of the bullet --
that's not what actually happens in life when a bullet hits a human
being?"
DR. PETTY -- "No, of course not."
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "What you're saying is that from your Neutron
Activation Analysis, there may have been fifty people firing at
President Kennedy that day....but if there were, they all
missed....ONLY bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the
President. Is that correct?"
DR. VINCENT P. GUINN (NAA Expert) -- "That's a correct statement;
yes."
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Delgado, I believe you testified before the
Warren Commission, that on the rifle range Oswald was kind of a joke,
a pretty big joke."
NELSON DELGADO (served with Oswald in Marine Corps) -- "Yes, he was."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You're aware that at the time Oswald was doing poorly
on the range, he was about to be released from the Marines, is that
correct?"
MR. DELGADO -- "Yes, he was."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Are you aware that in 1956, when Oswald first joined
the Marines, and was going through Basic Training, he fired a 212 on
the rifle range with an M-1 rifle, which made him a 'sharpshooter' at
that time -- are you aware of that?"
MR. DELGADO -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Given the fact that Oswald was about to get out of
the Marines when he was in your unit, and the fact that he showed no
interest in firing on the range -- you don't attribute his poor
showing on the range to his being a poor shot?"
MR. DELGADO -- "No."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "He could have done better, you felt, if he tried?"
MR. DELGADO -- "Certainly."
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "While he {Lee Oswald} was at your home did he ask you
for any curtain rods?"
RUTH PAINE (acquaintance of Lee and Marina Oswald) -- "No, he didn't."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did he ever, at ANY time, ask you for curtain rods?"
MRS. PAINE -- "No."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any discussion between you and him, or you
and Marina, about curtain rods?"
MRS. PAINE -- "No."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now you, in fact, DID have some curtain rods in the
garage, is that correct?"
MRS. PAINE -- "In the garage...yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "After the assassination, they were still there."
MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, that's right."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
MRS. PAINE -- "I do think for the historical record it's important
that people understand that Lee was a very ordinary person -- that
people can kill a President without that being something that shows on
them in advance."
MR. GERRY SPENCE -- "Is it really your purpose here to try to defame
this man in some way?"
MRS. PAINE -- "I'd like a FULL picture -- I think it's really
important for history that a FULL picture of the man be seen."
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, Mr. O'Connor, if the President's brain being
missing from his head is one of the most shocking things that you've
ever seen in your entire life, a matter that you think should have
been investigated, certainly....and if they {the HSCA investigators}
spoke to you for one-and-a-half hours about your observations that
night, why wasn't it important enough for you to tell these people
about it?"
PAUL O'CONNOR (technician who assisted at JFK's autopsy at Bethesda
Naval Medical Center) -- "I was under orders not to talk until that
time."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "What?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "I was under orders not to talk to anybody..."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "By whom?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "By....the United States military brought in orders a
couple days after the autopsy, and we were to remain silent."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "But you talked to them for an hour-and-a-half. You
told them all types of things in that document."
MR. O'CONNOR -- "I received permission from the Select Committee on
Assassinations to talk to the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of
Defense."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Paul, when I first asked you this question over the
phone, did you tell me -- 'the reason I never told them is....they
never asked me'?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "Well, they didn't ask me."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So, in other words, Mr. O'Connor, even though this is
one of the most shocking things that you've ever seen, and you're
going to remember it till the day you die....and you feel this matter
should have been investigated....if those investigators for the House
Select Committee didn't ask you the magic question -- by golly you're
not about to tell 'em!! Is that correct?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "No sir. I only answered what I was asked....and that
was it."
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, Doctor, if the bullet was coming on a downward
path as it entered the Presidential limousine, as you say it was, is
that correct?"
DR. CYRIL H. WECHT (forensic pathologist who served on the HSCA's FPP
panel; has always believed a conspiracy existed with respect to JFK's
murder) -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Alright....and it MISSED Governor Connally....is that
correct...?"
DR. WECHT -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "...Why didn't it hit the driver of the car or do any
damage to the car, Doctor?"
DR. WECHT -- "A couple of things. The straight line in that open
limousine could have taken it over the left side of the car; and as
the line shows*, it would have and could have indeed missed the
driver."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Wait a minute....it's coming on a DOWNWARD path,
Cyril! It's coming on a downward path into the Presidential limousine,
goes through the President's body, misses Governor Connally, and
magically also misses the driver and doesn't do any damage to the
Presidential limousine."
DR. WECHT -- "Wait, just a moment! I did not say that THAT bullet
missed all of these people completely or that it missed the car! You
KNOW that there were fragments found in the car, Mr. Bugliosi!"
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You said the bullet passed on a straight line through
the President's body..."
DR. WECHT -- "Absolutely."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "...Passed through soft tissue. So that bullet came
out pristine..."
DR. WECHT -- "That's right."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "The bullet fragments found in the front seat of this
car, Doctor, were bullet fragments....very, very damaged....very, very
small. What happened to that pristine bullet when it came through
President Kennedy's body?!! Who did it hit?!!"
DR. WECHT -- "What happened to the third bullet under the Warren
Commission theory, Mr. Bugliosi?!! Where is it?! You're asking ME to
be responsible for the bullets?!"
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "I want to know what happened to YOUR bullet, Doctor."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Well, Doctor, by definition, it seems to me that you
are saying, that if the other eight pathologists disagreed with you --
and they did -- is that correct...?"
DR. WECHT -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "...Okay. Seems to me, Doctor, that by necessary
implication they are either hopelessly and utterly incompetent, or
they deliberately suppressed the truth from the American public. Is
that correct?"
DR. WECHT -- "There is a third alternative, which would be a hybrid to
some extent of the deliberate suppression, sir..."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "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?"
DR. WECHT -- "I'll prefer to put it this way....I'm the only one who
had the courage to say that the King was nude, and had no clothes
on....yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "No further questions."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
* = NOTE RE. CYRIL WECHT'S TESTIMONY -- The diagram that was used by
Dr. Wecht at the mock trial (purporting what Wecht thinks was the
trajectory of the bullet path from the TSBD to the limousine) was
laughably askew and inaccurate as far as the "right-to-left"
trajectory line that was drawn on that schematic was concerned. The
angle from the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD to the car (at approx. the
SBT bullet strike at Zapruder Frame #224) was not nearly as sharp an
angle as purported in Wecht's chart/diagram. The diagram also does not
account for Governor Connally's being turned to his right in his jump
seat when struck with the SBT bullet.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
CLOSING ARGUMENTS / FINAL SUMMATION......
VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S INITIAL CLOSING ARGUMENTS:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in the brief time I have to address
you in this historic trial, I want to point out what must already be
obvious to you....that Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald alone
is responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, our
young and vigorous leader whose Presidency stirred the hopes of
millions of Americans for a better world, and whose shocking death
grieved and anguished an entire nation.
But before I summarize that evidence for you....against Mr.
Oswald....evidence that conclusively proves his guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt....I want to discuss several issues with you which
the defense has raised during this trial.
Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck by
the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally.
With respect to whether or not any shots were fired from the Grassy
Knoll, I want to make the following observations -- firstly, it is
perfectly understandable that the witnesses were confused as to the
origin of fire. Not only does Dealey Plaza resound with echoes, but
here you have a situation of completely-unexpected shots over just a
matter of a few moments.
When you compound all of that with the fact that the witnesses were
focusing their attention on the President of the United States driving
by, a mesmerizing event for many of them....and the chaos, the
hysteria, the bedlam that engulfed the assassination scene....it's
remarkable that there was any coherence at all to what they thought
they saw and heard.
Human observation, notoriously unreliable under even the most optimum
situation, HAS to give way to hard, scientific evidence. And we do
have indisputable, scientific evidence in this case that the bullets
which struck President Kennedy came from his rear, not his front.
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.
If EITHER of the two bullets that struck President Kennedy came from
the front, why weren't there any entrance wounds to the front of the
President's body, nor any exit wounds to the rear of his body?
Furthermore, if there WAS a gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll, how
come only bullets from Oswald's rifle struck President Kennedy and
Governor Connally? In fact, how come NOT ONE of this other gunman's
bullets even hit the Presidential limousine?
Does the defense want you folks to believe that this other
gunman....hired by a sophisticated group of conspirators
apparently....a well-financed group....I can assume he {Mr. Spence} is
going to tell you that....was so bad a shot, that not only couldn't he
hit Kennedy and Connally, he could not even hit the Presidential
limousine, a large car?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it couldn't be more obvious that
there was no gunman at the Grassy Knoll. No one SAW anybody with a
rifle in that area. No weapon nor expended cartridges from a weapon
were found there. It didn't happen.
With respect to Ruby killing Oswald, the evidence is overwhelming that
he was a very emotional man. When we couple the fact that Ruby cared
deeply for Kennedy with the fact that he probably thought that he
would be viewed as a hero, Ruby's killing of Oswald has all of the
earmarks of a very personal killing, completely devoid of any outside
influence.
In the short time I have left, I want to summarize the evidence of
guilt against Mr. Oswald....
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, within minutes of the assassination,
a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle -- serial number C dash 2766
-- was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Oswald ordered the rifle under the name 'A. Hidell' -- we KNOW that.
We know from the testimony of Monty Lutz, the firearms expert, that
the two large bullet fragments found inside the Presidential limousine
were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of
all other weapons.
We also know from the firearms people that the three expended
cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor
window -- undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. Norman heard fall from
above -- were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons.
So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON....that caused that
terrible, terrible spray of brain matter to the front! The worst sight
that I have ever seen in my entire life!
And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that
day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far
as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald
was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.
At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else....how much do
you need?....if we had NOTHING else....this would be enough to prove
Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more.
Let's look at Oswald's conduct .... November the 22nd, 1963, the day
of the assassination, was a Friday. Whenever Oswald would go to visit
his wife in Irving, he'd go on a Friday evening....come back on a
Monday morning.
On the week of the assassination, however, for the very first time, he
goes there on a THURSDAY evening....obviously to get his rifle for the
following day.
After the assassination, all the other employees of the Book
Depository Building return to work. There's a roll call. They're
accounted for. Not Oswald. He takes off. The ONLY employee who leaves
the building.
Just forty-five minutes after the assassination....out of the five
hundred thousand or so people in Dallas....Lee Harvey Oswald is the
one out of those five hundred thousand people who just happens to
murder Officer J.D. Tippit.
Oswald's responsibility for President Kennedy's assassination
explains....EXPLAINS....why he was driven to murder Officer Tippit.
The murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some
awful deed. What other reason under the moon would he have had to kill
Officer Tippit?
Continuing on, when he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he
TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same
as if he had said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How
did he tell us? Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an
UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt.
If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why
did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary
to do that if he's innocent?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to
do with President Kennedy's assassination and was framed....this
otherwise independent and defiant would-be revolutionary, who disliked
taking orders from anyone, turned out to be the most willing and
cooperative frame-ee in the history of mankind!! Because the evidence
of his guilt is so monumental, that he could have just as well gone
around with a large sign on his back declaring in bold letters 'I Just
Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!!"
Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent,
would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the
Spanish language!
Normally, ladies and gentlemen, in a murder case, a verdict of guilty
brings about a certain measure of justice....obviously a limited
amount of justice....but a certain measure of justice for the victim
and his or her surviving loved ones. But here, the effect of this
assassination went far beyond President Kennedy and his family. This
was an enormous offense against the American people. And no justice
could ever be achieved.
I respectfully ask you to return a swift verdict of guilty against Lee
Harvey Oswald....simply because it is the only verdict that is
consistent with the evidence -- evidence which conclusively proves
Oswald's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen."
===============================
MR. BUGLIOSI'S FINAL CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO THE JURY (WHICH FOLLOWED MR.
SPENCE'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE):
"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.
I have yet to see the man who can convince twelve reasonable men and
women as you folks are....that black is white....and white is black.
Mr. Spence, in his argument to you, no more desired to look at the
evidence in this case than one would have a desire to look directly
into the noonday sun. And I can't really blame him, because if I were
he, I wouldn't want to either.
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.
Mr. Spence did say this....it was kind of a subtle, very clever
argument....it took me a while to grasp exactly what he was doing....I
THINK he said this, and if I misrepresent you, sir, I'm sorry, but I
think he said that Lee Harvey Oswald was the exact type of person to
set up as a patsy. Or words to that effect. I'm just paraphrasing. A
Marxist, a defector to Soviet Russia.
Actually, he was the exact type of person to murder the President. And
my colleague very cleverly turned it around and said he's the exact
type of person to make as a patsy.
Let's take a look at Oswald .... Can anyone fail to see how utterly
and completely crazy this man here was? Utterly and completely nuts.
Bonkers. And you have to be bonkers to commit a Presidential murder;
you gotta be crazy; nuts.
One example, among many -- How many Americans....how many people
anywhere in the WORLD....defect to the Soviet Union? You'll find more
mango trees at the North Pole....more one-hundred-dollar bills in the
Florida poorhouse....than you'll find people defecting to Russia, or
to anywhere behind the Iron Curtain. That alone shows how completely
and utterly mentally unhinged this man was. Again, that's the exact
type of person to kill the President.
In his own writing, after ridiculing both the Soviet and American
systems of government, he {Lee Harvey Oswald} wrote: 'To a person
knowing both systems, he must be opposed to their basic foundations
and representatives'.
Elsewhere, after vehemently condemning both systems, he wrote: 'I
despise the representatives of both systems'. There's that word
'representative' again.
Though he may or may not have had any personal dislike for Kennedy, we
don't know that. For all we know maybe he didn't think Kennedy was
that bad a person....everything is relative in life. However, I think
one thing is pretty obvious, Kennedy almost undoubtedly would have
represented to Oswald the ultimate, quintessential representative --
that's the key word, 'representative' -- of a society for which he had
a grinding contempt.
On the issue of conspiracy, Mr. Spence {VB chuckles} -- I'm
paraphrasing him -- he certainly didn't say who specifically murdered
the President....but he certainly implied to you that it was some
nebula, some powerful group -- he never put the hat on anyone, he kept
the hat on his table here; I thought he was going to put it on
someone's head, but he didn't.
Some mysterious group....powerful group....murdered the President and
framed Lee Harvey Oswald. But he didn't say who these people were. He
did say the CIA covered-up here; he said the FBI covered-up there.
In which case, if the FBI and CIA were covering-up -- they'd be the
ones who murdered the President, right? Why doesn't Mr. Spence come
right out and say it? Why doesn't he accuse the CIA and the FBI of
murdering the President? One thing you can say about Mr. Spence, he's
not a shy man. He knows how to exercise his First-Amendment freedom of
speech....but he doesn't SAY it. Because he's very intelligent; very
wise.
I'll tell you why he doesn't say it -- because he KNOWS that if he
said that the FBI murdered the President, or the CIA murdered the
President....it would sound downright SILLY! You'd LAUGH at him!
But even though neither the CIA nor organized crime would have any
productive motive whatsoever to kill the President, let's make the
unwarranted assumption that they did....that they had such a motive,
and let's go on and discuss Mr. Spence's next point about Ruby killing
Oswald.
Mafia contract killers are always selected with utmost care. I mean
the one chosen to kill Oswald would be everything that Jack Ruby was
not. He'd be someone who had a long track record of effectively
carrying out murder contracts before for them. It would be a precise,
unemotional, business-like, and above all, tight-lipped, killer for
hire.
Another point HAS to be mentioned -- It is a well-known fact that
throughout the years organized crime has consistently and religiously
avoided killing public officials....if for no other reason, that they
have enough heat on them already, without significantly INCREASING
that heat by going after a public figure. They don't do it.
Going after the President of the United States -- of all people --
would be a suicidal act on their part....an act guaranteed to bring a
heat upon them not too much less than the surface of the sun. When the
Mob came to this country, they didn't leave their brains behind in
Palermo.
The whole notion of sophisticated groups -- like organized crime, U.S.
Intelligence -- getting Jack Ruby, of all people, to accomplish a job
which, if he talked, would prove fatal to their existence is just
downright laughable.
Organized crime and U.S. Intelligence, if they were the ones behind
this, could just as well have gone down to Disneyland and gotten
Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck to do their bidding for them. Not only is
the whole idea absurd, ladies and gentlemen, but there's just no
evidence to support it.
When Mr. Spence argued that Oswald was just a patsy and was framed, he
conveniently neglected to be specific. HOW was Lee Harvey Oswald
framed? When we look at the mechanics of such a possible conspiracy in
this case -- how COULD he have been framed?
Let's get into the mechanics .... Who was this other gunman who, on
the day of the assassination, made his way into the Book Depository
Building, carrying a rifle....went up to the sixth floor....shot and
killed the President....made his way back down to the first
floor....and escaped without leaving a trace?
How, in fact, if Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within
forty-five minutes of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or
was he framed for that murder too?!
Mr. Spence can't have it both ways. If the people who set Oswald up
were so sophisticated to come up with this incredible, elaborate
conspiracy -- I mean to the point they had people, according to Mr.
Spence, who can superimpose this man's head on someone else's body,
and imposters down in Mexico City -- if they were THAT bright, why
weren't they intelligent enough to know the most obvious thing of
all....
That you don't attempt to frame a man of questionable marksmanship
ability who possesses a nineteen-dollar mail-order rifle!
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.
You are twelve reasonable men and women, and that is why I have every
confidence that you will confirm this fact for the pages of history by
your verdict of guilty.
Thank you so very much, ladies and gentlemen."
-------------------------------
[END TRIAL EXCERPTS]
-------------------------------
Post-trial comments by Vincent Bugliosi (including some remarks made
in 1988, during a repeat TV airing of the Docu-Trial):
"The majority of the American people now believe, polls have shown,
that there was a conspiracy in this case....and the reason for that is
that the side of the Government has never been presented. It's been
presented, it's in the Warren Report; but that's 27 volumes. Who's
gone out and purchased 27 volumes? They haven't done that.
The only books that have come out on this case are by conspiracy
buffs; and these are the people that have gone on talk shows
throughout the country, and they finally convinced the American
people.
So the importance of this case is that we finally now gave the
American people, and the people around the world, the prosecution's
viewpoint." -- VB; November 1986
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It's been said that if you push something at someone long enough,
eventually they're going to start buying it -- particularly if they're
not exposed to any contrary view. And I think that's precisely what
has happened here. For 25 years, the American people have been
inundated with an unremitting torrent of books, and radio and TV talk
shows, all alleging conspiracy.
And what's happened is that the shrill voice of the conspiracy buffs
finally penetrated the consciousness of the American people and
convinced the majority of Americans that there was a conspiracy. Even
though the reality is that no one in 25 years has come up with one
scrap of credible, substantive evidence pointing in the direction of a
conspiracy.
In any event, throughout these same 25 years, apart from the early
media in 1963 and 1964, the United States Government's position hasn't
been told. True, it's been available. But how many Americans have gone
out and purchased the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission? They
haven't done that. And this is why the vote coming in will be very,
very heavy in favor of a conspiracy.
I think it's very, very noteworthy that before this five-hour
{televised Docu-} trial, 85 percent of the American people believed in
a conspiracy. And being exposed to only five hours, it dropped
dramatically to 71. If they had seen the eighteen hours of testimony
and evidence, it would drop even further. And if they knew all the
truth about the case, very few people would conclude that there was a
conspiracy." -- VB; 1988
==============================================
"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" VIDEO LINKS:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4zIBSqUEP94
http://youtube.com/watch?v=57mVVTtfk6U
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HNmqJO4dFDE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ku0uAnJKLxE
==============================================
RELATED LINKS:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/weird/eoc8-4.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DE1238F933A15752C1A960948260
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962995,00.html
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/pdf/1283.pdf
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=bugliosi+assassination&search=Search
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=bugliosi+&search=Search
==============================================
eca...@tx.rr.com
A superb SEVEN STAR post if the kooks will
read it.. The independents are more likely to
read it and I think solid LNers will read it.
I will take the excerpt you attached David and
post the full text in hopes that the less than
energetic posters such as Ricland, who insists
on brief answers, may take the time it deserves
to at least read it..
TO RIC:
Ric your premise to this nutty and intentionally
provocative post are an insight as to where your
priorities are.. I for one would never intentionally
post positions that I knew to be false in order
to stimulate a response(s).. You on the other hand
think nothing of this revolting tactic which comes
at the expense of deceiving newcomers and at the
expense of further erosion of your already trashed
credibility.
I personally saw numerous flawed, inaccurate,
deceptive foundations and prefaces to your ultimate
question.. I must confess I did see a few I didn't
know one way or the other.. But I saw none that I
knew to be true.. Unless I myself read your post
too hastily.
Ric your site looks really great.. You have
demonstrated you can after all, channel some energy
into an endeavor.. But I believe God may have played
a cruel trick on you in the common sense and *objectivity*
departments.. Almost as important is your shameless
lack of ethics.. I say that because that part can be
fixed..
But your lack of logical analysis and *objectivity*
is a lifetime curse Ric..
Ed Cage
1732Mar2407
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> http://www.skepticfiles.org/weird/eoc8-4.htm
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DE1238F933A15752...
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962995,00.html
>
> http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/pdf/1283.pdf
>
> http://youtube.com/results?search_query=bugliosi+assassination&search...
>
> http://youtube.com/results?search_query=bugliosi+&search=Search
>
> ==============================================
David Von Pein
"Oswald, from his own lips, TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was
guilty....almost the same as if he had said 'I murdered President
Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us? Well, the lies he told,
one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt. If
Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny purchasing
that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why did he even
deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary to do that
if he's innocent?" -- V. Bugliosi; 1986
RICLAND
Wait a minute in the same summation Bugliosi said Oswald is a nut.
And now he asks why a nut lied?
Nut or no?
Which one is it, Bugsy?
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/2qgodj
David Von Pein
That's the (obvious) point VB was making in the above quotes.
Now, what was the "nut" point you were trying to make, Ric? (Is it
that all "nuts" are born liars...EVEN IF THEY ARE INNOCENT OF
MURDERING THE PRESIDENT?)
'Splain it to me, Ricky (Ricardo).
RICLAND
Because he's a nut, like Bubliosi says.
A nut who can shoot better than our entire 1963 Olympic team.
tomnln
Do you expect us to take the word of the authorities of what dialogue took
place during those Interrogation sessions?
The Same sources who LIED repeatedly?
"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:34GdnWiCecjvPpbb...@comcast.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
> Exactly which tape do we Hear Oswald Lying?
Oh, that's easy, Nutjob.
How about the WFAA-TV tape where Oswald states "The reason they've
brought me in is because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet
Union.".
That's nothing but a lie.
The reply would have been something like this: "The reason you were
brought in, Lee, old boy, is because you are a prime suspect in the
murder of Officer J.D. Tippit."
And by the time he made his taped statement, Oswald knew he was a
suspect and that is why he was brought it.
You're also a liar, Tomnln.
In fact, you and Lee should have shared that cell together.
>
> Do you expect us to take the word of the authorities of what dialogue took
> place during those Interrogation sessions?
>
> The Same sources who LIED repeatedly?
>
> "RICLAND" <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:34GdnWiCecjvPpbb...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > David Von Pein wrote:
> >> INSTANT REPLAY..........
>
> >> "Oswald, from his own lips, TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was
> >> guilty....almost the same as if he had said 'I murdered President
> >> Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us? Well, the lies he told,
> >> one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt. If
> >> Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny purchasing
> >> that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why did he even
> >> deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary to do that
> >> if he's innocent?" -- V. Bugliosi; 1986
>
> > Wait a minute in the same summation Bugliosi said Oswald is a nut.
>
> > And now he asks why a nut lied?
>
> > Nut or no?
>
> > Which one is it, Bugsy?
>
> > ricland
>
> > --
> > Who Shot JFK?
> >http://tinyurl.com/2qgodj- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
aeffects
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > If LHO's innocent why does he have to lie so much (nut or no nut)?
>
> > That's the (obvious) point VB was making in the above quotes.
>
> > Now, what was the "nut" point you were trying to make, Ric? (Is it
> > that all "nuts" are born liars...EVEN IF THEY ARE INNOCENT OF
> > MURDERING THE PRESIDENT?)
>
> > 'Splain it to me, Ricky (Ricardo).
>
> Because he's a nut, like Bubliosi says.
>
> A nut who can shoot better than our entire 1963 Olympic team.
well, there you go....that explains it -- Oswald didn't have his cross
country skis on that day!
Wait a minute, maybe he had foldup skis in that paperbag? Perhaps
that's why daBugliosi needed 15 years to write his tome.....
> ricland
>
> --
> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/2qgodj
aeffects
You should be more gracious David.... Haven't you written a review or
two concerning the Ricardo family and their commercial televison
successes?
tomnln
ALL in your own words.
You're a PAID Liar.
Wanna try another one?>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
Why do you continue to STEAL time from your boss?
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175185018.4...@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HNmqJO4dFDE
~~~~~~~
"Oswald, from his own lips, TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was
guilty....almost the same as if he had said 'I murdered President
Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us? Well, the lies he told,
one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt.
If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why
did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary
to do that if he's innocent?
If Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with President Kennedy's
assassination and was framed....this otherwise independent and defiant
would-be revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned
out to be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of
mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he
could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back
declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F.
Kennedy'!!!" -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI
~~~~~~~
RICLAND
All rhetoric meant to appeal to simple minds. For example, if you are
someone else started a thread with the above, you'd be laughed out of
the newsgroup. And then there's the question of Bugliosi using a tiny
portion of what Oswald said while in custody.
But if we follow Bugliosi's logic and it's later discovered the MC
wasn't Oswald's, Bugliosi's childish reasoning all but releases Oswald
from guilt.
Bugliosi never faced an opponent the caliber of Mark Lane. The mock
trial, in fact, showed how mediocre Bugliosi courtroom skills were, how
unmerited his title of "brilliant" lawyer is.
He won his case not by brilliant presentation but by over-the-top
rhetoric, shameless misrepresentation of fact -- "Oswald was a nut!",
obnoxious treatment of witnesses, and childish histrionics like the above.
He took would should have been an opportunity to show the world Oswald's
guilt and showed us instead all the obnoxious things cheap lawyers do to
win cases.
ricland
--
Reclaiming History ...???
The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
David Von Pein
Vince never faced off against Donald Duck either. So what??
You had never even HEARD of Vincent Bugliosi until last month, had
you? Why not just admit it?
You make me sick.
RICLAND
>>>> "Bugliosi never faced an opponent the caliber of Mark Lane." <<<
>
>
> You had never even HEARD of Vincent Bugliosi until last month, had
>
> You make me sick.
>
If I make you sick now, wait until Bugliosi's book comes out.
David Von Pein
You get funnier each and every day.
Plus, who are you going to get to read the book to you? For, you
surely can't tackle it all by your lonesome.
You can't even get a simple book title right...and you can't even do a
simple Amazon or Barnes-&-Noble book search to verify the more the one-
dozen titles penned by Vince Bugliosi to date -- which is a simple
search that anyone with any sense WOULD have done before putting the
following silly sentence in print: "Bugliosi has written a grand total
of three books" (Ricland).
And you're so predisposed to a JFK conspiracy (unless you're just a
"CT-Faker" as I still halfway suspect), you're ready to pounce on
every pro-LN word uttered by VB...no matter what it is evidently, and
no matter how much sense it might make.
In short, any anti-VB rebuttal you choose to embarrass yourself with
will undoubtedly fall severely short...just like all your half-assed,
unresearched arguments you've placed in print since your arrival here
in March 2007 (when you first learned that VB had anything at all to
do with the JFK case).
For some reason, you seem to think you're in the big leagues among
"CTers" and among debaters in general. In reality, you seem to be more
akin to the #3 waterboy (if that).
RICLAND
It's worth noting none of the respected Warren Commission apologists
appear to be anxiously awaiting Bugliosi's book.
Walt
Exactly right rcland.... Von Pea Brain often uses the Mannlicher
Carcano is evidence .....But to do that he has IMAGINE that Oswald was
firing a Mannlicher Carcano at the President. He has to totally
ignore eyewitnesses who actually SAW the gunman who was NOT Oswald
firing a HUNTING rifle from the West end window. The Mannlicher
Carcano was nothing but a cheap stage prop. The FBI is on record as
saying the scope was mounted crooked and the rifle could NOT have been
accurate enough to hit a target smaller than a hay barn.
Walt
>
> But if we follow Bugliosi's logic and it's later discovered the MC
> wasn't Oswald's, Bugliosi's childish reasoning all but releases Oswald
> from guilt.
>
> Bugliosi never faced an opponent the caliber of Mark Lane. The mock
> trial, in fact, showed how mediocre Bugliosi courtroom skills were, how
> unmerited his title of "brilliant" lawyer is.
>
> He won his case not by brilliant presentation but by over-the-top
> rhetoric, shameless misrepresentation of fact -- "Oswald was a nut!",
> obnoxious treatment of witnesses, and childish histrionics like the above.
>
> He took would should have been an opportunity to show the world Oswald's
> guilt and showed us instead all the obnoxious things cheap lawyers do to
> win cases.
>
> ricland
>
> --
> Reclaiming History ...???
> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
How would you know? You never research anything...ever.
I doubt you know what month it is.
And you evidently don't know what time it is either....based on your
last two screwed-up posts (time-wise) in this thread.
David Von Pein
Here we have Walt's latest knee-jerk theory which he's just recently
tossed out onto the stoop.
The fact that LHO's Carcano was found on the same floor from where
rifle fire emanated (plus all of that other "ballistics" stuff that
proves 100% that C2766 was being fired at JFK, and ONLY that rifle hit
any victim) is evidence that is trumped completely (per Walt) by a
witness who might have thought the rifle was a "deer rifle" from
hundreds of feet away.
As I said...you cannot reason with kooks like Walt. No matter what you
do, these kooks will FIND a "conspiracy". It's in their bloodstream.
RICLAND
Right, Walt.
And if the Publishers Weekly review is any measure, the way Bugliosi is
going to try to get around this, is his much bally-hooed courtroom
razzle-dazzle -- "Oswald told us in his own words he was guilty when he
denied he owned this rifle!"
But his razzle won't dazzle in print. You saw the mock trial. Bugliosi's
stock in trade is badgering witnesses and histrionics. You didn't
discredit Dr. Welt's testimony when Bugliso scolded him, "So, all the
other doctors are wrong and you're right, huh, Dr. Welt?
That didn't impress you.
So exactly what else can Bugliosi bring to the table?
There's nothing else. There's certainly nothing else Publishers Weekly
saw. In other words, "Reclaiming History" can be expected to be little
more than all the known facts filtered through Bugliosi's mind; his take
on all the known facts, how he would try the known facts were he the
prosecutor in the case.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with Oswald's guilt at all.
Walt
> >>> "The Carcano was nothing but a cheap stage prop..." <<<
>
> Here we have Walt's latest knee-jerk theory which he's just recently
> tossed out onto the stoop.
>
The fact that LHO's Carcano was found on the same floor from where
rifle fire emanated
There was a Mannlicher Carcano found on the sixth floor..... So
what...
There is NO proof that it was fired that day. Eye witnesseses
described seeing the long metal barrel of a hunting rifle sticking out
of the window. One eye winess said that the gunman who was wearing a
light colored sport shirt, was STANDING behind the fully open window
on the west end of the TSBD, and he had a hunting rifle with a scope
in his hands. Inspector Sawyer radioed a description of the rifle to
police headquarters at about 12:45. Sawyer said the rifle was a 30-30
or some kind of Winchester. A 30-30 is a hunting rifle NOT a military
rifle like the Mannlicher Carcano. Sawyer almost certainly got this
information from Howard Brennan.
plus all of that other "ballistics" stuff that proves 100% that C2766
was being fired at JFK,
Oh you mean the bullet that was found at Parkland that cannot be
connected to the assassination.
(plus all of that other "ballistics" stuff that
proves 100% that C2766 was being fired at JFK, and ONLY that rifle
hit
any victim) is evidence that is trumped completely (per Walt)
and ONLY that rifle hit any victim) is evidence that is trumped
completely (per Walt)
Really??... Where's the evidence??
by a
witness who might have thought the rifle was a "deer rifle" from
hundreds of feet away.
Hundreds of feet??.... Approximately 175 feet..... A little more than
half a football field. A distance routinely covered by a pass in a
football game. A quarterback has no trouble seeing that distance.
>
> As I said...you cannot reason with kooks like Walt. No matter what you
> do, these kooks will FIND a "conspiracy". It's in their bloodstream.
What you mean is you can't beat down the truth with lies...
Walt
David Von Pein
You can't even remember the name of the "darling" doctor of the CT
crowd.
Unbelievable laziness.
aeffects
you're getting pretty sensitive, David. We're not wearing you out are
we..... Hell, the book isn't even out yet! LMAO!
David Von Pein
David Von Pein
In my opinion, Ruth Paine's testimony (vs. Gerry Spence) was
tremendous stuff. Nothing phony about it at all. No way. (The part
when Ruth starts to break down a little bit into tears when she tells
of her anger toward Lee Oswald because Lee had used her typewriter
without permission is a highlight -- "That offended me deeply," said
Ruth.)
Ruth is a person who always wore the effects and emotion of the
assassination right on her sleeve...for everyone to see. And she
wasn't (isn't) ashamed of that; nor should she be.
She handled herself exceedingly well at that '86 Mock Trial. In fact,
she probably could (should!) have gotten a little testier and angrier
at Mr. Spence when he started throwing up questions to her as if she
"worked for the CIA", etc.
Ruth simply laughed, which she was also berated for by Spence. But,
overall, a good (or at least a little better) picture of Lee Harvey
Oswald came out of Ruth Paine's mock-trial testimony, IMO.
These words possibly were the best spoken at that Docu-Trial in
London...and they were spoken by Mrs. Paine:
"I do think for the historical record it's important that people
understand that Lee was a very ordinary person -- that people can kill
a President without that being something that shows on them in
advance."