Charles Mason: The Sequel
RICLAND
Harvey Oswald" it took me a minute or two to figure out what he was up to.
Bugliosi, you'll recall, gained his reputation prosecuting Charlie
Manson for the brutal Tate-LaBianca murders. Manson was a howling
madman, the kind of certified nut who got his jollies stabbing pregnant
women in their bellies then licking the blood and fetal matter off the
knife.
Bugliosi convicted Manson and this event was the beginning of a fabulous
career for the young prosecutor -- promotions, book deals, movie deals,
free blow jobs from grateful hippy girls, the works. He got it all, and
just for winning a case that was virtually impossible to lose.
Anyway, I'm listening to his summation during the mock LHO trial and
he's going on about how LHO is as bat shit crazy as you can get, a real
blood-drinking lunatic, and I say, wait a minute. Who is he talking
about? What's going on here?
I connected the dots; it wasn't hard. Bugliosi was giving the same
summation he gave in the Manson trial, almost word for word. If it ain't
broke, don't fix it, right?
I think it was about this point I stood up and yelled, "What a freakin'
hack!"
The guy was giving us "Charlie Manson: the Sequel." It's a wonder he
didn't start referring to Marina Oswald as Squeaky Fromm. It was like
watching those old "I Love Lucy" reruns. He hadn't even bothered to
update his metaphors. He was saying things like, "Oswald is as guilty as
sin!"
"Guilty as sin" ...? I hadn't heard anybody use that one since they took
the Jack Benny Show off the air.
Eighty-five percent of the American population think Oswald was
railroaded; that tells you virtually no one thinks he's nuts; but there
was Bugliosi doing his Manson schtickola like it was 1969 all over again.
Nothing in Oswald's resume tells us he was a madman. His co-workers,
supervisors, land-lady, relatives, et. al., never said anything like it.
So why does Bugliosi turn the trial into "Charlie Manson -- He's Baaaak!"?
ricland
aeffects
between you and Ben and a few others around here, looks like "game-set-
match"
If daBug has any, ANY powers of persuasion he best show us a case he
can PROVE.... not pontificate! NO hearsay!
David Von Pein
Vince does have a tendency to use the exact same phrases from trial to
trial and summation to summation, I cannot deny that --- e.g.: "But
from their GRAVES, they cry out for justice!!" --- he used that in '71
at the end of the Manson Trial and in '99 for his "Absolutely 100%
Guilty" final summation to a mock O.J. "jury". .....
But...so what? The verbiage still DOES apply in each case. If it
didn't apply, VB wouldn't be saying it.
Next?....
>>> "Nothing in Oswald's resume tells us he was a madman." <<<
Yeah....except for that little quirk of his about wanting to take a
gun and shoot people with it. But that's not "mad", is it? Nor is it
anything to get worked up over.....is it?
(Geez.)
>>> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?" <<<
Damn straight. Who needs to "fix" perfection?
Manson = Guilty As Sin.
Oswald = Guilty As Sin.
~Mark VII~
Next silly argument?....
luthie...@yahoo.com
manson is a wack-job
he didnt kill anyone, he brainwashed his cronies to do it for him.
sick wack-o
RICLAND
Dave, if you're just grandstanding, I suppose it's alright. If you're
advocating we call people "guilty" before they go to trial, that's not
alright.
Oswald never had his day in court. And there is compelling reason to
believe there was a conspiracy, at least so says the House Select Committee.
But let me ask you this: Would you have even given Oswald a trial, and
if so, why?
ricland
luthie...@yahoo.com
important word...
therefore given his opinion, he would have been dismissed
end of story
On Mar 16, 5:46 pm, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> "Bugliosi was giving the same summation he gave in the Manson trial, almost word for word." <<<
>
> > Vince does have a tendency to use the exact same phrases from trial to
> > trial and summation to summation, I cannot deny that --- e.g.: "But
> > from their GRAVES, they cry out for justice!!" --- he used that in '71
> > at the end of the Manson Trial and in '99 for his "Absolutely 100%
> > Guilty" final summation to a mock O.J. "jury". .....
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> > But...so what? The verbiage still DOES apply in each case. If it
> > didn't apply, VB wouldn't be saying it.
>
> > Next?....
>
> >>>> "Nothing in Oswald's resume tells us he was a madman." <<<
>
> > Yeah....except for that little quirk of his about wanting to take a
> > gun and shoot people with it. But that's not "mad", is it? Nor is it
> > anything to get worked up over.....is it?
>
> > (Geez.)
>
> >>>> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?" <<<
>
> > Damn straight. Who needs to "fix" perfection?
>
> > Manson = Guilty As Sin.
>
> > Oswald = Guilty As Sin.
>
> > ~Mark VII~
>
> > Next silly argument?....
>
> Dave, if you're just grandstanding, I suppose it's alright. If you're
> advocating we call people "guilty" before they go to trial, that's not
> alright.
>
> Oswald never had his day in court. And there is compelling reason to
> believe there was a conspiracy, at least so says the House Select Committee.
>
> But let me ask you this: Would you have even given Oswald a trial, and
> if so, why?
>
> ricland- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
So, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald is completely "innocent" (i.e., "Not
Guilty") in your eyes...merely due to the fact that he was killed
before he could go to trial?
Is that about the size of your current "Don't Call Him Guilty"
argument, sir?
>>> "Oswald never had his day in court." <<<
Yeah, but he's had millions of defense lawyers around the globe trying
to get him off for 43+ years. (And the bum's STILL "guilty as sin". Go
figure.)
>>> "And there is compelling reason to believe there was a conspiracy, at least so says the House Select Committee." <<<
Yeah, so "compelling" that the NAS and Justice Dept. were able to
dismantle that "compelling reason" in very short order.
Next silly question?....
>>> "Would you have even given Oswald a trial?" <<<
Yep. It's a silly question alright.
It's not up to ME (nor would it have been up to one person to decide)
to "give Oswald a trial". He would have gone to trial in Texas in 1964
had Ruby not intervened of course.
luthie...@yahoo.com
harvey oswald knew.
aeffects
> >>> "If you're advocating we call people "guilty" before they go to trial, that's not alright." <<<
>
> So, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald is completely "innocent" (i.e., "Not
> Guilty") in your eyes...merely due to the fact that he was killed
> before he could go to trial?
he WASN'T tried! Therefore, its incumbent on Lone Nutter's proving to
CTer's (and the rest of the world) the evidence pointing to Oswald's
guilt, You've been found lacking at this point.... 43 years after the
fact, still NOTHING!
luthie...@yahoo.com
im convinced what he could of told us would have sent a preverbial
tidal wave and destroyed them all.
> > had Ruby not intervened of course.- Hide quoted text -
RICLAND
>>>> "If you're advocating we call people "guilty" before they go to trial, that's not alright." <<<
>
>
> So, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald is completely "innocent" (i.e., "Not
> Guilty") in your eyes...merely due to the fact that he was killed
> before he could go to trial?
No. There are other choices. My point is that when you say Oswald is
guilty you are technically wrong because he was never tried -- he never
got an opportunity to defend himself.
Thus, the correct way to talk about it is to call him "the accused."
We all know the things Ruby began saying just before he died. We all
know the House Select Comm has since said there probably was a
conspiracy. We all know the recent release of the Kennedy autopsy photos
show he wound in the back of his head was most definately an exist wound
http://tinyurl.com/2ua3lm
All this new information is compelling reason to at least ask new
questions.
That's what objectivity is all about -- being open to new information.
>
> Is that about the size of your current "Don't Call Him Guilty"
> argument, sir?
The argument asks the question why do we call Oz guilty and everyone
else "accused"? The answer is because Oz is accused of killing a
President we loved. But that answer underlines precisely why we
shouldn't call him guilty.
Were I to ask you why you call him guilty you'd reply because all the
evidence points to this guilt. But this still doesn't meet the test.
Do you understand any of this?
>
>
>>>> "Oswald never had his day in court." <<<
>
> Yeah, but he's had millions of defense lawyers around the globe trying
> to get him off for 43+ years. (And the bum's STILL "guilty as sin". Go
> figure.)
Sorry, but here's where I end this discussion.
ricland
David Von Pein
The above silliness just MIGHT be a new all-time high for KOOKINESS
and PURE BULLSHIT spoken here at The Nuthouse. (No small feat either,
that's for certain.)
"Still NOTHING" was the quote, remember.
The absurdity of those words can only make a person shake their head
in total disbelief.
David Von Pein
I prefer "Double-Murdering, Wife-Beating, No-Good Bastard" myself.
But, hey, whatever works for you is fine.
Ben Holmes
>
>David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>"Bugliosi was giving the same summation he gave in the Manson trial, almost word
>>>>>for word." <<<
>>
>> Vince does have a tendency to use the exact same phrases from trial to
>> trial and summation to summation, I cannot deny that --- e.g.: "But
>> from their GRAVES, they cry out for justice!!" --- he used that in '71
>> at the end of the Manson Trial and in '99 for his "Absolutely 100%
>> Guilty" final summation to a mock O.J. "jury". .....
>>
>>http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0008IXD08&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=RGA2WFXGVXCCJ&displayType=ReviewDetail
>>
>> But...so what? The verbiage still DOES apply in each case. If it
>> didn't apply, VB wouldn't be saying it.
Yes... let's take a look at what VB said in a *REAL* trial:
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 exlude 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 Owen 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.
David Von Pein
....Which had nothing whatsoever to do with the John Fitzgerald
Kennedy assassination case.
Try again, Ben-Kook.
Plus....Why, Mr. Ben-Kook, are you propping up ANYTHING uttered by
someone (VB) who YOU, yourself, said can certainly never be trusted to
tell the truth?
Hypocrite.
=====================================================
=====================================================
=====================================================
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."
RICLAND
> In article <8aidnYtt_bCwg2bY...@comcast.com>, RICLAND says...
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> "Bugliosi was giving the same summation he gave in the Manson trial, almost word
>>>>>> for word." <<<
>>> Vince does have a tendency to use the exact same phrases from trial to
>>> trial and summation to summation, I cannot deny that --- e.g.: "But
>>> from their GRAVES, they cry out for justice!!" --- he used that in '71
>>> at the end of the Manson Trial and in '99 for his "Absolutely 100%
>>> Guilty" final summation to a mock O.J. "jury". .....
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0008IXD08&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=RGA2WFXGVXCCJ&displayType=ReviewDetail
>>>
>>> But...so what? The verbiage still DOES apply in each case. If it
>>> didn't apply, VB wouldn't be saying it.
>
>
> Yes... let's take a look at what VB said in a *REAL* trial:
>
> 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
Not quite sure what your purpose is for jamming the bandwidth with all
these VB quotes is so I'll confine my remarks to the first one. However,
what I'm about to write could very well apply to each of them.
The VB quote seems out of place. In both the JFK and Robert Kennedy
assassination there was compelling reason to question whether there were
conspirators. VB's quote is melodramatic. It makes no comment about the
opposing evidence. It uses hyperbole instead of reason and fact. If he
were a writer he'd be called a "hack." I don't know what the term is for
a lawyer of similar low quality but I would expect it's the same one.
ricland
David Von Pein
attorneys in American history. 105-1 as L.A. DA (1960s-1970s). 21-0 in
murder trials.
>>> "If he {VB} were a writer he'd be called a "hack." <<<
Vincent IS a writer....and a damn good one too. Are you saying you
actually didn't know this?? He's written multiple best-sellers. And he
spent 21 years writing the soon-to-be JFK bible -- "RECLAIMING
HISTORY". ....
http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/450518c94e5e8ded
This Ricland guy isn't even in the JFK ballpark's parking lot. Geesh.
lazu...@webtv.net
fanatical lone nutter who is attempting to pawn himself off as
objective, the voice of reason. Books are persuasive-clever writers on
secretive subjects can fool the smartest people, especially when it
takes years to be pretty knowlegeable on this subject, and how many in
the news media have read anything besides case closed, or that ABC
farce? there's no way in the world either of those things were remotely
fair...
David Von Pein
Of course not -- because they actually relied on REAL evidence (plus
some common sense). So, naturally, the kooks must scream "unfair".
Still waiting for that very first "CT" bullet to show up on my
doorstep though.
Footnote.........
Please take note of the gradual movement of the CTers to denounce VB
as "fanatical", "a liar", "a hack", etc. ... whereas, just months
earlier, I never heard much of anything of a super-negative nature
being said about Bugliosi. Which actually surprised me a little at the
time. The kooks are making up for lost insults it would seem. Because
the closer we get to VB's JFK Bible being released, the kooks want to
get in their wholly-unfounded pre-release "He's a shill/fraud" crap.
Typical.
Of course, Ben-Kook is the exception to that "recent" rule re. VB --
with Ben denouncing Vince as a liar and teller of LN
misrepresentations for a year or two now (maybe longer).
RICLAND
Judging what I saw from "The Lee Harvey Oswald Trial" his presentation
was pure hatchet job, pure circular reasoning -- "A person would have to
be nuts to kill the President. Oswald killed the President, therefore
he's nuts."
Charles Manson redo.
My take on Bugliosi is that he's been prosecuting the Charles Manson
case for the past 35 years. And I'm betting the book on the Kennedy
Assassination he's coming out with will be Helter-Skelter Part II.
ricland
RICLAND
> Ricland's nuts. Vince Bugliosi is/was one of the most highly-respected
> attorneys in American history. 105-1 as L.A. DA (1960s-1970s). 21-0 in
> murder trials.
>
>>>> "If he {VB} were a writer he'd be called a "hack." <<<
>
> Vincent IS a writer....and a damn good one too. Are you saying you
> actually didn't know this?? He's written multiple best-sellers. And he
> spent 21 years writing the soon-to-be JFK bible -- "RECLAIMING
> HISTORY". ....
The only claim I'm making about Bug is that he used circular reasoning
in his summation: "The person who killed JFK is a nut. Oswald killed
JFK therefore Oswald is a nut."
ricland
aeffects
welcome to the REAL world David Von Pein...
RICLAND
And there you go again: a lame attempt at wit.
Dude, you're not funny.
ricland
RICLAND
Or you having a conversation with yourself, David? Even the SBTs are
ignoring you.
ricland
David Von Pein
"designations" for people in here, making his posts all the sillier
and muddled) don't talk very much to each other in here. It's not
"ignoring" however.
I read all of Bud's posts religiously, and I think Bud reads mine as
well. But we don't banter a lot back and forth (sometimes, but not a
lot).
Because we know we've got the case "solved"; and it's better to
torment and ridicule the CT-Kooks than to pat each other on the back
every five seconds. (I'm not saying I haven't done a little back-
slapping on occasion; but it's not constant, mind you.)
Okay...now what were you saying again about Arlen Specter "strongly
disavowing" his SBT theory? I've yet to see the proof of him saying
that. Got another 3-minute soundbite that you think proves conspiracy
re. Specter?
Or would you care to admit you exaggerated (which is the nicest way I
can describe your obvious deception re. the Specter matter)?
aeffects
> The "SBTs" (i.e., "LNers", since Ric can't even use the proper
> "designations" for people in here, making his posts all the sillier
> and muddled) don't talk very much to each other in here. It's not
> "ignoring" however.
>
> I read all of Bud's posts religiously, and I think Bud reads mine as
> well. But we don't banter a lot back and forth (sometimes, but not a
> lot).
>
> Because we know we've got the case "solved"; and it's better to
> torment and ridicule the CT-Kooks than to pat each other on the back
> every five seconds. (I'm not saying I haven't done a little back-
> slapping on occasion; but it's not constant, mind you.)
David, you've had your first taste how a defense attorney might
approach the case against LHO.
Lest you forget, there's 12 people sitting in a jury box. As a
bystander it's no longer your decesion WHO owns the guilt, thats
daBugliosi's job to prove -- and yes, Bud the Dudster is *silent*.
Perhaps you could convince Vince to drop by, eh?
David Von Pein
You mean with "Ric"??
Give me holy-friggin' break!
Ric is a scam artist for certain. His "SPECTER DISAVOWS THE SBT"
video...which shows NO SUCH THING, is proof of that already at this
early stage.
He NEEDS a conspiracy, like all you kooks do. It's like
air....water....food...and for Ric (evidently) masturbation.
You're a sorry lot.
And if Ric was Oz's lawyer in court, the prosecution wouldn't need to
show up. They could phone in the case against Oz and win 12-0.
RICLAND
> The "SBTs" (i.e., "LNers", since Ric can't even use the proper
> "designations" for people in here, making his posts all the sillier
> and muddled) don't talk very much to each other in here. It's not
> "ignoring" however.
Huh...?
Don't you get anything, David?
SBT stands for Single Bullet Theory
SBTs stands for Single Bullet Theorists
DUH ...
ricland
aeffects
let me say it this way: presupposing a jury's verdict is, how do I say
it, a bit ballsey on your part? Your ONLY hope is, it NEVAH get's to a
coutroom!
In any case, when the Prosecutors DO drop by the courtroom, they can
bring along those documents requested at discovery... thanks, Guy!
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <8aidnYtt_bCwg2bY...@comcast.com>, RICLAND says...
>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>>>"Bugliosi was giving the same summation he gave in the Manson trial, almost word
>>>>>>> for word." <<<
>>>> Vince does have a tendency to use the exact same phrases from trial to
>>>> trial and summation to summation, I cannot deny that --- e.g.: "But
>>>> from their GRAVES, they cry out for justice!!" --- he used that in '71
>>>> at the end of the Manson Trial and in '99 for his "Absolutely 100%
>>>> Guilty" final summation to a mock O.J. "jury". .....
>>>>
>>>>http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0008IXD08&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=RGA2WFXGVXCCJ&displayType=ReviewDetail
>>>>
>>>> But...so what? The verbiage still DOES apply in each case. If it
>>>> didn't apply, VB wouldn't be saying it.
>>
>>
>> Yes... let's take a look at what VB said in a *REAL* trial:
>>
>> 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
>
>
>Not quite sure what your purpose is for jamming the bandwidth with all
>these VB quotes is so I'll confine my remarks to the first one.
Clearly you missed the point. DVP is convinced that Bugliosi is confident that
there was no conspiracy *BASED ON THE EVIDENCE*, and not as merely his 'lawyer's
outlook'.
To demonstrate that in the past he *HAS* believed, and argued, that there was a
conspiracy puts Bugliosi *FIRMLY* in the category of a lawyer arguing his
client's case - and not in the category of a reseacher who is interested only in
the *TRUTH*, regardless of what it may turn out to be.
> However,
>what I'm about to write could very well apply to each of them.
>
>The VB quote seems out of place.
It does if you believe, as DVP does - that Bugliosi is an honest researcher -
attempting to find the truth in the evidence.
If, on the other hand, AND AS THESE QUOTES DEMONSTRATE - Bugliosi is merely a
lawyer doing what all lawyers do - taking a position for money, then his
credibility on the facts of the JFK assassination is lessened considerably.
> In both the JFK and Robert Kennedy
>assassination there was compelling reason to question whether there were
>conspirators. VB's quote is melodramatic. It makes no comment about the
>opposing evidence. It uses hyperbole instead of reason and fact. If he
>were a writer he'd be called a "hack." I don't know what the term is for
> a lawyer of similar low quality but I would expect it's the same one.
You're looking at the trees, and miss the forest.
I don't *care* what his words were, or how well he expressed himself - I'm
demonstrating that *HE ARGUED CONSPIRACY IN A COURT OF LAW*, and is now in the
process (by writing his new book) of contradicting his former "beliefs".
Ben Holmes
Good of you to tell the truth, Davey-boy... we hear it so little from you.
I have indeed maintained *EXACTLY* the same outlook on Bugliosi's proposed book
- should it ever actually be published.
I asserted then, and I continue to assert - that it's not possible to write a
book of the length that Bugliosi is reported to have in the works - and *NOT*
misrepresent the evidence, lie about the evidence, and in general, simply spin
everything.
Even the WCR - which was an excellent prosecution brief - was required to
misrepresent it's own evidence, even to the point of outright lies in a number
of places.
The LNT'er case can't be made without misrepresentation and lies - at least, it
can't be *strongly* made without such.
I have *also* asserted that Davey-boy, and indeed, any LNT'er; will be unable to
defend the CT'er charges that will inevitably come forth - just as they did with
Posner's work.
RICLAND
Gad, what is it you people have against writing with clarity? Your last
paragraph, which is an overly long sentence starts with a prepositional
phrase, that continues on without a direct object. You write "To
demonstrate ...puts Bugliosi ..."
No!
"To demonstrate" starts a prepositional phrase that requires completion,
but rather than complete it with a direct object you complete it with
"puts Bugliosi...'
No!
I had to read the think five times to figure out what you're trying to
say. Then if that's not bad enough, you insert two parenthetical phrases
without punctuating them -- "in the category of a lawyer..." "and not
in the category..."
And to this the clumsy syntax of the two phrases: "in the category of a
lawyer"?
"In the category of a lawyer" What kind of syntax is that?
If you don't know how to construct long sentences, use short ones;
they're much easy to mess up.
Bottom line, I can't respond to your last paragraph because I have no
idea what you were trying to say.
>
>> However,
>> what I'm about to write could very well apply to each of them.
>>
>> The VB quote seems out of place.
>
> It does if you believe, as DVP does - that Bugliosi is an honest researcher -
> attempting to find the truth in the evidence.
>
> If, on the other hand, AND AS THESE QUOTES DEMONSTRATE - Bugliosi is merely a
> lawyer doing what all lawyers do - taking a position for money, then his
> credibility on the facts of the JFK assassination is lessened considerably.
Why?
Does a doctor lose creditability if he charges you to remove your appendix?
>
>
>> In both the JFK and Robert Kennedy
>> assassination there was compelling reason to question whether there were
>> conspirators. VB's quote is melodramatic. It makes no comment about the
>> opposing evidence. It uses hyperbole instead of reason and fact. If he
>> were a writer he'd be called a "hack." I don't know what the term is for
>> a lawyer of similar low quality but I would expect it's the same one.
>
>
> You're looking at the trees, and miss the forest.
>
> I don't *care* what his words were, or how well he expressed himself - I'm
> demonstrating that *HE ARGUED CONSPIRACY IN A COURT OF LAW*, and is now in the
> process (by writing his new book) of contradicting his former "beliefs".
More incoherence. What are you talking about, dude?
ricland
Ben Holmes
Following up *your* question... what was my *purpose*.
English is not really that difficult of a language to follow and understand.
Only when you intentionally *try* to, will you succeed.
>No!
>
>"To demonstrate" starts a prepositional phrase that requires completion,
>but rather than complete it with a direct object you complete it with
>"puts Bugliosi...'
>
>No!
>
>I had to read the think five times to figure out what you're trying to
>say. Then if that's not bad enough, you insert two parenthetical phrases
> without punctuating them -- "in the category of a lawyer..." "and not
>in the category..."
>
>And to this the clumsy syntax of the two phrases: "in the category of a
>lawyer"?
>
>"In the category of a lawyer" What kind of syntax is that?
>
>If you don't know how to construct long sentences, use short ones;
>they're much easy to mess up.
>
>Bottom line, I can't respond to your last paragraph because I have no
>idea what you were trying to say.
Bottom line, I really have no need of an English professor. My posts are
elegant enough.
Plonk...
David Von Pein
process (by writing his new book) of contradicting his former
"beliefs"." <<<
Oh, so "RECLAIMING HISTORY" is going to be a book all about the ROBERT
Kennedy assassination, eh?
News to me.
Back to reality --- They are two completely different cases. And VB
treats them as such. For some silly reason Ben-Kook wants to lump the
RFK case in with the JFK one.
~shrugs~
David Von Pein
Translation --- Ben will continue to be a CT-Kook even after he's been
demonstrably shown to have been one all these years via the 1.5-
million words in Vincent Bugliosi's tome.
Go figure kooks.
>>> "Even the WCR - which was an excellent prosecution brief - was required to misrepresent its own evidence, even to the point of outright lies in a number of places." <<<
Of which Ben has established exactly zero.
One point in Ben's favor today, however...when he "PLONKED" Ricland.
The first wise thing Ben's ever done here. Kudos.