Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

"On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" (5-Hour Version)

29 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 22, 2012, 7:27:05 PM2/22/12
to

http://On-Trial-LHO.blogspot.com/#Watch-The-Trial

I've re-done my "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" video series (linked
above). This new version includes the complete 5-hour trial as it
aired on Showtime in 1986, including more than 45 minutes of added
footage that I didn't have in my earlier Internet video version.

The biggest additions come in these segments of the series:

Part 1 -- I've included Edwin Newman's pre-trial comments and overview
of the assassination.

Part 5 (Eugene Boone) -- 5 more minutes of footage added.

Part 9 (Cecil Kirk) -- 9 minutes added. I've now got all of Gerry
Spence's cross-examination included here.

Part 10 (Dr. Charles Petty) -- 6 minutes added.

Part 22 (Seth Kantor) -- 9 additional minutes.

http://On-Trial-LHO.blogspot.com/#Watch-The-Trial

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 24, 2012, 9:14:47 PM2/24/12
to


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/6dfdc0d3413ce9d2/926e2d30e8fb6cc8?#926e2d30e8fb6cc8


PAT SPEER SAID:

The real find, as you know, David, will be the full unedited program
["On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"], which, we've been led to believe, was
shown in England. It was 20 hours long, correct? Have you met anyone
who's even seen it? Have you asked Bugliosi to, for posterity's sake,
if no other, make the transcript available to you, so you can put it
on your website?

As you know, I asked Spence about this, and he claimed he never had a
transcript of the entire program, as far as he could recall, and most
certainly didn't have one now. As you know, Bugliosi cites the
transcript repeatedly in his book, including a number of citations to
the transcript from sections of the program NEVER shown the American
public. It would be nice to know what else was said, don't you think?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, yes, I agree with you on that, Pat. I'd love to see the complete
21-hour trial and see the full transcript too.

And, yes, I have asked Mr. Bugliosi about possibly getting a copy of
the transcript and/or the video version of the whole trial. Vince, in
turn, referred me to his lawyer friend Jack Duffy in Fort Worth. Vince
told me that Jack had VHS copies of the entire 21-hour trial.

I e-mailed Mr. Duffy a few years ago and asked him about the tapes. I
never received a response. I was totally ignored.

I guess I could plead with Vince some more and ask him for a copy of
the complete transcript.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-1986.html

aeffects

unread,
Feb 25, 2012, 3:28:09 AM2/25/12
to
On Feb 24, 6:14 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> The real find, as you know, David, will be the full unedited program
> ["On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"], which, we've been led to believe, was
> shown in England. It was 20 hours long, correct? Have you met anyone
> who's even seen it? Have you asked Bugliosi to, for posterity's sake,
> if no other, make the transcript available to you, so you can put it
> on your website?
>
> As you know, I asked Spence about this, and he claimed he never had a
> transcript of the entire program, as far as he could recall, and most
> certainly didn't have one now. As you know, Bugliosi cites the
> transcript repeatedly in his book, including a number of citations to
> the transcript from sections of the program NEVER shown the American
> public. It would be nice to know what else was said, don't you think?
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Oh, yes, I agree with you on that, Pat. I'd love to see the complete
> 21-hour trial and see the full transcript too.
>
> And, yes, I have asked Mr. Bugliosi about possibly getting a copy of
> the transcript and/or the video version of the whole trial. Vince, in
> turn, referred me to his lawyer friend Jack Duffy in Fort Worth. Vince
> told me that Jack had VHS copies of the entire 21-hour trial.
>
> I e-mailed Mr. Duffy a few years ago and asked him about the tapes. I
> never received a response. I was totally ignored.

I wonder why..... lmfao!

> I guess I could plead with Vince some more and ask him for a copy of
> the complete transcript.
>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Feb 25, 2012, 10:31:45 AM2/25/12
to
In article <056a32e0-f550-4e99...@y38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
What convinces you that Bugliosi isn't simply lying again?


>> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-...


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

timstter

unread,
Feb 25, 2012, 8:11:37 PM2/25/12
to
On Feb 26, 2:31 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <056a32e0-f550-4e99-886b-4c33f640c...@y38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
It's amazing, Holmes, how you gibber about Carrico describing the
throat wound as being a lie in Bugliosi's massive tome, Reclaiming
History, yet have no problems with Mark Lane's repeated lies in the
space of a few pages in his slim little book, Rush To Judgment.

Is that because you are a hypocrite, Benny?

Curious Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 29, 2012, 1:43:38 AM2/29/12
to

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-1964.html


RE: "THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1964 FEATURE FILM):

A somewhat rarely-seen "mock trial" that is actually quite good is Larry Buchanan's 1964 courtroom movie, "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" (not to be confused with the Lorne Greene/Ben Gazzara 1977 TV movie of the same title).

Buchanan's black-and-white film, which can be seen in its entirety at the link above, is very interesting. And the most compelling aspect of it (to me) is the timing of when it was produced. It was made within weeks or months of the assassination, and debuted in a Milwaukee theater (incredibly) on April 22, 1964, which was a point in time when the Warren Commission hadn't even come close to finishing its investigation.

I've watched the Buchanan film several times, and there are very few blatant errors in the movie. One mistake is when the prosecutor elicits testimony from a witness that indicated that all three of the bullets that were fired by Lee Oswald during the assassination were recovered and were in evidence at the trial.

Another major error contained in the film is when the actor portraying one of JFK's autopsy doctors says that the bullet which entered JFK's upper back did not exit his body, and that the throat wound was a result of a fragmented portion of the bullet that struck the President's head.

But those errors regarding the President's wounds are understandable from the point-of-view of the filmmakers, due to the lack of additional information concerning the facts which overwhelmingly support the Single-Bullet Theory, which is information that Buchanan did not have by the time his low-budget film was rushed into theaters in April of '64.

And Buchanan was also undoubtedly relying on the erroneous initial report written by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, who attended President Kennedy's autopsy. The official autopsy report, however, corrected the mistake that appears in the early FBI report, with the autopsy report clearly stating that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck" [Warren Report; Page 543].

All things considered, Larry Buchanan's "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" is remarkably accurate in most of the details pertaining to the death of JFK. And one of the most refreshing things about the movie is that Lee Oswald is not perceived by the defense to be an innocent patsy who was framed to take the fall by evil and unknown outside forces. Even Oswald's own lawyer concedes the possibility (or even the probability) of his client being guilty of killing the President. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the defense to have entered an additional plea of "Not guilty by reason of existing insanity".

One additional note -- One of the witnesses in the Buchanan film is played by real assassination eyewitness James Altgens. He doesn't play himself, however.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-1964.html

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 10:04:44 PM3/7/12
to
0 new messages