From Bugliosi's Secretary on the "Ghostwriting" Charge

[John McAdams]

This came to me via e-mail:

<Quote on>

This is in response to David Lifton's outrageous, malicious
and contemptible lie regarding Vincent Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming
History, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, where he
claims ghost writers wrote this great book (which will be read by
generations to come, long after Mr. Lifton and the rest of us are
gone, including all the die-hard conspiracy theorists), where I say,
unequivocally, that NO section of Mr. Bugliosi's book was
ghostwritten. How do I know? Simple. I was the one (as Mr. Bugliosi's
secretary for many years in the writing of this book) who transcribed
a great number of tapes of his dictation and, much more, and with no
exaggeration, thousands of yellow pad sheets of his handwriting as
well as his handwritten faxes on every single section of the book. I
can vouch for the fact that Vincent Bugliosi is a man of integrity,
principle, and I might add, a perfectionist with a capital "P." He is
someone who has spent years researching this subject, as evidenced by
the over 10,000 citations in his book (perhaps the most heavily
sourced non-fiction book of any kind ever), which included not only
his countless telephone calls and letters, but personal interviews as
well. Indeed, if anyone looks at the 170 pages of citations (source
notes) in the CD endnote, you will see that at least 99% of the
interviews upon which Mr. Bugliosi's book was, in considerable part,
written, were interviews of witnesses he personally conducted. That,
Mr. Lifton, if you are reading this, is what an author of Vincent
Bugliosi's caliber does.

What could possibly cause you, Mr. Lifton, to tell such an
unmitigated falsehood? Mr. Bugliosi told me he heard you had been
working on an Oswald biography for many years and couldn't complete
it. Mr. Bugliosi not only completed his biography of Oswald (I typed
up every single word of this section of Reclaiming History from Mr.
Bugliosi's dictation and handwriting), but it's an excellent
biography, and, I might add, was one of my favorites to transcribe.
Mr. Lifton, is the reason behind your blatant falsehood that you find
it hard to believe Mr. Bugliosi could do something you couldn't?
(Don't feel bad. Hundreds of people before you, including me, have
absolutely marveled at Mr. Bugliosi's incredible capacity for
productive work and achievement. For example, after the televised
docutrial of Oswald in London, Gerry Spence, his legal adversary,
said, "No other lawyer in America could have done what Vince did in
this case." What makes what Mr. Bugliosi does all the more
unbelievable is that he does everything with just a yellow pad and
pencil.) Or are you simply furious at Mr. Bugliosi for preempting your
work on the Oswald biography? This appears to me to be the real reason
for the preposterous story you are now peddling.

The pure and simple fact is that David Lifton, along with
many, many other conspiracy theorists who are mentioned in Reclaiming
History, are depicted and debunked as being illogical and not having
one iota of common sense dealing with this subject—albeit, some more
than others. So be it! Get on with your fantasies and stop criticizing
logic. Everyone knows that a conspiracy in anything is more intriguing
and captivating than the old, boring, straight facts. But that happens
to be the case in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Again, Mr. Lifton, if you are reading this, sometimes things are just
that (very boring, but excruciatingly true). I might add that I took
notice of the fact that you did not dwell on the content of Mr.
Bugliosi's dealing with specific issues (e.g., autopsy, acoustic,
Zapruder film, etc.). Instead, you have made an allegation that not
only is totally false, but completely irrelevant to the merits of the
book. By the way, Mr. Lifton (if you're still reading this), you
called Vincent Bugliosi a "street bully" in his writing style. But I
thought you said ghostwriters wrote his book?

If you're still with me, Mr. Lifton, there can be little
question that what you have written is libelous. When I asked Mr.
Bugliosi if he intended to sue you, he said, "I've been told by
someone who knows him that he's judgment proof. However, if he
continues this slander and libel of his, it's possible I may end up
suing him anyway, and have him working for me the rest of his life
paying off the automatic judgment against him. The same is true of
Joan Mellen, someone named Ric Landers, and anyone else who peddles
this phony story and whose name comes to my attention."

One final point, Mr. Lifton. I have figured out a way to shut
you up. You can come to my home and I will show you the hundreds upon
hundreds of thousands of words I typed up from Mr. Bugliosi's
handwriting for his book as well as from a great number of tapes of
his dictation on the book. If I can't do this, I'll give you $100,000.
If I can, you give me $100,000. Is that a deal? If you're afraid to do
this, then please shut your mouth and remove your trash from the
internet.

Rosemary Newton

The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Fiorentino]

KUDOS!

But do you honestly think that a man who believes that the President's body
was stolen and his wounds altered by a group of conspirators could actually
comprehend what you have stated?

Just as a rather funny aside. Mr Lifton threatened to sue me, right here on
this NG.

John F.

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:468b30f3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> one iota of common sense dealing with this subject-albeit, some more

[David Von Pein]

Fabulous stuff, John. Thanks for sharing that excellent e-mail.

Go Rosemary! I love her already! (From just one single message.) ;)

Now seems like a good time to re-post these items I have recently
written re. Mr. Bugliosi's exquisite book, "Reclaiming History". .....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e020f809d5a0b5fe

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/152c32e6339d8670

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/70cb3f7da25853ab

[Anthony Marsh]

John McAdams wrote:
> This came to me via e-mail:

>=20
> <Quote on>
>=20

> This is in response to David Lifton's outrageous, malicious
> and contemptible lie regarding Vincent Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming
> History, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, where he
> claims ghost writers wrote this great book (which will be read by
> generations to come, long after Mr. Lifton and the rest of us are
> gone, including all the die-hard conspiracy theorists), where I say,
> unequivocally, that NO section of Mr. Bugliosi's book was
> ghostwritten. How do I know? Simple. I was the one (as Mr. Bugliosi's
> secretary for many years in the writing of this book) who transcribed
> a great number of tapes of his dictation and, much more, and with no
> exaggeration, thousands of yellow pad sheets of his handwriting as
> well as his handwritten faxes on every single section of the book. I
> can vouch for the fact that Vincent Bugliosi is a man of integrity,
> principle, and I might add, a perfectionist with a capital "P." He is
> someone who has spent years researching this subject, as evidenced by
> the over 10,000 citations in his book (perhaps the most heavily
> sourced non-fiction book of any kind ever), which included not only
> his countless telephone calls and letters, but personal interviews as
> well. Indeed, if anyone looks at the 170 pages of citations (source
> notes) in the CD endnote, you will see that at least 99% of the
> interviews upon which Mr. Bugliosi's book was, in considerable part,
> written, were interviews of witnesses he personally conducted. That,
> Mr. Lifton, if you are reading this, is what an author of Vincent

> Bugliosi's caliber does.=20
>=20

> What could possibly cause you, Mr. Lifton, to tell such an
> unmitigated falsehood? Mr. Bugliosi told me he heard you had been
> working on an Oswald biography for many years and couldn't complete
> it. Mr. Bugliosi not only completed his biography of Oswald (I typed
> up every single word of this section of Reclaiming History from Mr.
> Bugliosi's dictation and handwriting), but it's an excellent
> biography, and, I might add, was one of my favorites to transcribe.
> Mr. Lifton, is the reason behind your blatant falsehood that you find
> it hard to believe Mr. Bugliosi could do something you couldn't?
> (Don't feel bad. Hundreds of people before you, including me, have
> absolutely marveled at Mr. Bugliosi's incredible capacity for
> productive work and achievement. For example, after the televised
> docutrial of Oswald in London, Gerry Spence, his legal adversary,
> said, "No other lawyer in America could have done what Vince did in
> this case." What makes what Mr. Bugliosi does all the more
> unbelievable is that he does everything with just a yellow pad and
> pencil.) Or are you simply furious at Mr. Bugliosi for preempting your
> work on the Oswald biography? This appears to me to be the real reason

> for the preposterous story you are now peddling.=20
>=20

> The pure and simple fact is that David Lifton, along with
> many, many other conspiracy theorists who are mentioned in Reclaiming
> History, are depicted and debunked as being illogical and not having

> one iota of common sense dealing with this subject=97albeit, some more

> than others. So be it! Get on with your fantasies and stop criticizing
> logic. Everyone knows that a conspiracy in anything is more intriguing
> and captivating than the old, boring, straight facts. But that happens
> to be the case in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
> Again, Mr. Lifton, if you are reading this, sometimes things are just
> that (very boring, but excruciatingly true). I might add that I took
> notice of the fact that you did not dwell on the content of Mr.
> Bugliosi's dealing with specific issues (e.g., autopsy, acoustic,
> Zapruder film, etc.). Instead, you have made an allegation that not
> only is totally false, but completely irrelevant to the merits of the
> book. By the way, Mr. Lifton (if you're still reading this), you
> called Vincent Bugliosi a "street bully" in his writing style. But I

> thought you said ghostwriters wrote his book? =20
>=20

> If you're still with me, Mr. Lifton, there can be little
> question that what you have written is libelous. When I asked Mr.
> Bugliosi if he intended to sue you, he said, "I've been told by
> someone who knows him that he's judgment proof. However, if he
> continues this slander and libel of his, it's possible I may end up
> suing him anyway, and have him working for me the rest of his life
> paying off the automatic judgment against him. The same is true of
> Joan Mellen, someone named Ric Landers, and anyone else who peddles
> this phony story and whose name comes to my attention."

>=20

> One final point, Mr. Lifton. I have figured out a way to shut
> you up. You can come to my home and I will show you the hundreds upon
> hundreds of thousands of words I typed up from Mr. Bugliosi's
> handwriting for his book as well as from a great number of tapes of
> his dictation on the book. If I can't do this, I'll give you $100,000.
> If I can, you give me $100,000. Is that a deal? If you're afraid to do
> this, then please shut your mouth and remove your trash from the
> internet.
>
> Rosemary Newton
>
>

So does this mean that we get to blame Rosemary for all the mistakes,=20
just as Nixon blamed Rosemary Woods for the 18-1/2 minute gap?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Jul 4, 5:51 am, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> KUDOS!
>
> But do you honestly think that a man who believes that the President's body
> was stolen and his wounds altered by a group of conspirators could actually
> comprehend what you have stated?
>
> Just as a rather funny aside. Mr Lifton threatened to sue me, right here on
> this NG.
>
> John F.
>

> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

For what it's worth, Bugliosi says in his book that Lifton is one of the
best researchers around. He just disagrees with his conclusions.

While I by no means think Bugliosi's book was "ghost-written" I do suspect
that many of his arguments were culled from arguments found elsewhere,
including this forum. Since he doesn't like computers this would indicate
he had a research assistant or two, or three. In any event, I don't think
he thought all of the arguments through, to see if they in fact made sense
or were consistent with his over-all views. Take, for example, his
switcheroo on the back wound. He spends pages defending the HSCA FPP's
conclusion that the back wound was below the throat wound, only to
suddenly state that HIS interpretation of a photo that does not even show
the back wound leads him to conclude that the back wound was above the
throat wound. What's that about? Is he really contradicting his own
experts based on HIS analysis of a photo that does not even show the
wound? Shouldn't he at least double-check with his experts before coming
to such a conclusion? If he pulled that kind of stunt in front of a jury,
he'd almost certainly lose his case.

When one reads the Acknowledgments section of the book, and reads how the
book was written, one can see how such mistakes were made. The book was
written in outline form many years ago, and Bugliosi just kept adding and
padding and arguing and adding and padding and arguing some more. Much of
the book was written as a verbal argument, and then inserted in the book.
That is why so much of the book comes across like a rant. Because it IS a
rant. Bugliosi sat in a room (or more probably paced in a room in front
of an imaginary jury) and dictated over 72 hours of tapes that were then
fed into the book. Consequently, I suspect that somewhere in the future
this book will be studied by psychologists as much as by historians.
Rarely in history has someone been allowed to rant about his obsession to
such an extent. Psychologists and linguists will study Bugliosi's use of
words--how he describes conspiracy theorists, for example--to try and
understand his fears and inner turmoils--his hatred of the weak, his
failure to grow out of the anal stage, etc. I'd bet on it.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Jul 4, 1:35 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> This came to me via e-mail:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> This is in response to David Lifton's outrageous, malicious
> and contemptible lie regarding Vincent Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming
> History, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, where he
> claims ghost writers wrote this great book (which will be read by
> generations to come, long after Mr. Lifton and the rest of us are
> gone, including all the die-hard conspiracy theorists), where I say,
> unequivocally, that NO section of Mr. Bugliosi's book was
> ghostwritten. How do I know? Simple. I was the one (as Mr. Bugliosi's
> secretary for many years in the writing of this book) who transcribed
> a great number of tapes of his dictation

Altered by the government.

and, much more, and with no
> exaggeration, thousands of yellow pad sheets of his handwriting

Altered by the government.

as
> well as his handwritten faxes on every single section of the book.

Altered by the government.

I
> can vouch for the fact that Vincent Bugliosi is a man of integrity,
> principle, and I might add, a perfectionist with a capital "P."

Capital "P" altered by the government.

Dave

[Anthony Marsh]

Altered by Mr. Strawman.

> Dave

[Anthony Marsh]

David Von Pein wrote:
> Fabulous stuff, John. Thanks for sharing that excellent e-mail.
>
> Go Rosemary! I love her already! (From just one single message.) ;)
>

So does that mean that Rosemary ghostwrote the book? Or that she is
responsible for all the proofreading errors?

[Glenn Sarlitto]

> failure to grow out of the anal stage, etc. I'd bet on it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Regarding your...

"Rarely in history has someone been allowed to rant about his
obsession to
such an extent."

I take it that you have never read any of WEISBERG's books.

FORE!

GS

[Rich DellaRosa]

In article <1183611984.6...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Glenn Sarlitto <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

I think it is interesting to note how Ms Newton's writing style matches
Bugliosi's. I think that Lifton should accept her challenge if , for no
other reason, to meet a secretary who can afford to pay off a $100K bet.

--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/-/
http://www.jfkresearch.com

[Mike]

"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1183611984.6...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Mmm... but not for a gazillion pages! And Harold was usually right!<g>

Mike :-)

[twvaug...@yahoo.com]

On Jul 5, 9:39 am, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <1183611984.608644.131...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

Rich,

What makes you think that in the year 2007 a secretary can't have
$100k to bet on a sure thing?

Todd

> --
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/-/http://www.jfkresearch.com- Hide quoted text -

[David Von Pein]

>>> "So does that mean that Rosemary ghostwrote the book? Or that she is responsible for all the proofreading errors?" <<<

I can only stare back at you in blank dismay (and
bewilderment)....which is not an uncommon thing to want to do when
dealing with an Anthony Marsh-authored Google posting.

[rwa...@despammed.com]

On Jul 5, 12:33 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > Fabulous stuff, John. Thanks for sharing that excellent e-mail.
>
> > Go Rosemary! I love her already! (From just one single message.) ;)
>
> So does that mean that Rosemary ghostwrote the book? Or that she is
> responsible for all the proofreading errors?
>

This must just break your and Ricland's hearts.

[Anthony Marsh]

I am not posting on Google.
Some people never get the subtle humor in my posts.

[Anthony Marsh]

If that's her real name. Maybe it's actually Peggy Noonan.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/news/news_07050701.htm

[pjsp...@aol.com]

You're right, Glen, Bugliosi's style does resemble Weisberg's. Which
brings up another point. Quite often in the mainstream media, one will
find negative references to Weisberg's style. I recall reading that his
work was "unreadable," and "relentlessly nasty," etc... And yet here we
have a New York Times reviewer applauding Bugliosi for his style. Is it a
one-way street? Do CT's need to be all nice and respectful, in order to
be taken seriously, while Bugliosi can be as obnoxious as he likes? Is
this a country where we have officially sanctioned bullies?

When Oliver Stone made JFK, there was an enormous media backlash against
him. How dare he prop up a course of events as a possible scenario when
he can't prove it to be THE scenario!!!!. Now we have Bugliosi doing
something far worse, IMO. He is going around saying that his scenario is
THE scenario and that anyone who disagrees with him is cognitively
challenged. He is BEGGING the media to print articles showing him where he
is in error. A number of us have found a number of signifcant errors.
There are so many I stopped writing them down. And yet, what do we hear
from the media, by and large...applause and....crickets.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

On 4 Jul 2007 22:50:13 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
wrote:

I agree. And from elsewhere/other people. That would explain the
contradictions in what he says one place vs another place ... like on
the SBT.

I think it's clear Bugliosi himself is pretty in the dark on knowledge
of the evidence to any significant depth.

Barb :-)

[R J Johnson]

"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:06d8935ek1djukhej...@4ax.com...
: I agree. And from elsewhere/other people. That would explain the

: contradictions in what he says one place vs another place ... like on
: the SBT.
:
: I think it's clear Bugliosi himself is pretty in the dark on knowledge
: of the evidence to any significant depth.
: Barb :-)

I think it more that VB doesn't view the evidence "to any significant depth"
to be significant evidence at all. He believes much of it is actually
minutia and I believe he may be right.

---- Robert J. Johnson

[Peter Fokes]

On 15 Jul 2007 10:56:19 -0400, "R J Johnson"
<rj.jo...@insightbb.com> wrote:

>: Barb :-)

Barb was discussing the "contradictions" in his presentation of the
evidence.

Whether he believes certain evidence is significant or not is not the
issue.

The issue is contradictory accounts "in what he says one place vs
another place."

PF

[R J Johnson]

"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:iddk93t34157g2b1c...@4ax.com...
: On 15 Jul 2007 10:56:19 -0400, "R J Johnson"

I understood Barb's point. I'm of the opinion that apparent contradictions
are not that significant to the overall thesis. I realize that
contradictions; inches of variance, minority conflicting witness testimony,
so-called ear witness, so-called nose witness, questionable interpretation
of documents, etc. are the lifeblood of the newsgroup. However, I believe
this misses the point with regard to VB's book. It wasn't written for this
group. He knew in advance that you would devote untold hours towards trying
to tear it apart. I don't think he cares. The case he wants to make IMO is
to a far different audience. The book didn't really give him that
opportunity given it's girth but, I think a mini-series might just be the
ticket. I'm looking forward to the aftermath of that more than anything.

---- Robert J. Johnson

[Anthony Marsh]

Bugliosi is a sloppy researcher.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

On 15 Jul 2007 10:56:19 -0400, "R J Johnson"
<rj.jo...@insightbb.com> wrote:

He doesn't seem to know it well enough to be at any minutiae level.

In one place, he makes a comment about "temporal" that leads me to
think he doesn't know where the bone even is ... and maybe he thinks
it's the same as the temple. He's in the dark on much and waxes and
waxes the surface ... peppered with his irrelevant rhetoric ... to try
and make what he has to say shine like it's some revealing definitve
info. Pretty poor, I, as one who waited for years for his book to come
out, am more than disappointed.

Barb :-)
>
>

[Barb Junkkarinen]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:04:14 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
wrote:

Yup. Bugs can't even seem to agree with himself in places. Now that's
not what I would call reclaiming history.

Barb :-)
>
>PF

[Barb Junkkarinen]

On 15 Jul 2007 13:43:03 -0400, "R J Johnson"
<rj.jo...@insightbb.com> wrote:

Hi overall thesis is that there was a SB. He says it happened in one
span of frames. In another place he says it's in another set of
frames. He pronounces things as proof of one thing or another when
thery are no such thing.

But it's nice to see you're in step with the latest edition of the new
testamnet regardless. :-)

Barb :-)

[Russ Burr]

Barb, Regardless what frame he used the SB holds up. If it didn't where
did the bullet end up? Both Kennedy and Connally were aligned properly and
both were hit almost simultaneously IMO.

Russ

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Sorry, toots, you miss the point ... though Bugliosi also said much
the same irregardless of his having "proof" the SB happened at
different frame spans ... his bottomline, like most LNs, and Posner's,
is ... it happened so the details or any evidence to the contrary is
just wrong.

I've never thought you processed/thought that way before.

Barb :-)
>
>Russ

[tomnln]

Russ;
Your "Opinion" is Wrong.

Connally said he was hit at frame 231-234. Volume IV page 145.
Connally's Dr. Shaw said JBC was hit at Frame 236. Volume IV page 114.

"Russ Burr" <rdc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:469a8187$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Dave Reitzes]

On Jul 16, 12:08?am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Russ;
> Your "Opinion" is Wrong.
>
> Connally said he was hit at frame 231-234. Volume IV page 145.
> Connally's Dr. Shaw said JBC was hit at Frame 236. Volume IV page 114.

They were off by a fraction of a second, Tom. We have better copies of
the Z film than they did:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbth.html

You can argue about opinions, or you can address the real evidence.
The choice is yours.

Dave

> "Russ Burr" <rdc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:469a8187$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> On 15 Jul 2007 13:43:03 -0400, "R J Johnson"

> >> <rj.john...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
> >>>news:iddk93t34157g2b1c...@4ax.com...
> >>>: On 15 Jul 2007 10:56:19 -0400, "R J Johnson"

> >>>: <rj.john...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >>>:
> >>>: >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> > Russ- Hide quoted text -

[Russ Burr]

Ok Barb, I'll listen to what you have to say regarding this.

Russ

>
>>Russ
>
>

[Russ Burr]

tomnln wrote:

> Russ;
> Your "Opinion" is Wrong.

That's your opinion.

>
> Connally said he was hit at frame 231-234. Volume IV page 145.
> Connally's Dr. Shaw said JBC was hit at Frame 236. Volume IV page 114.

You can see signs of Connally being hit by Z224-Z225. That's my opinion.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, your theory is that the SBT is valid at ALL frames simply because
Connally is seated in front of Kennedy? Z-134, Z-210, Z-224, Z-255? It
doesn't matter that Connally was moving around in his seat as he
testified? Somehow he sensed where to be at the right moment to allow a
straight line trajectory?

> Russ

[tomnln]

Russ;
Do you think you know more about the shooting than JBC AND, his Doctors?

"Russ Burr" <rdc...@netscape.net> wrote in message

news:469bc0a7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

Should be called "Reclaiming My Advance."

> Barb :-)
>> PF
>

[David Von Pein]

Vincent Bugliosi's secretary (Rosemary Newton) wrote to me on July 19,
2007, and asked me if I would re-post the following Internet messages
which rebut the stupid allegations that Mr. Bugliosi's JFK book was
"ghostwritten" by various authors.

>From Rosemary's e-mail to me, I get the feeling that Mr. Bugliosi is
getting a little more perturbed about the accusations started by David
Lifton (or at least I think that Lifton started the rumor).

Anyway, I too think it's a good idea to let people read the truth once
again regarding Mr. Lifton's ridiculous "ghostwriting" allegations
with respect to Bugliosi's magnificent book, "Reclaiming History". So,
I'll give the following few posts a deserved instant replay:

==========================================================================

PATRICIA LAMBERT SAID:

"I have received several accounts of remarks David Lifton made about
me on the Black Op Radio program of May 24th concerning Vince
Bugliosi's
book "Reclaiming History."

For the record: I did not write one single word of Vince Bugliosi's
book, not even a footnote. I never saw Vince Bugliosi's manuscript. I
never saw any portion of Vince Bugliosi's manuscript. I didn't even
get a peek at the galleys. No comma, colon, semi-colon, parenthesis,
hyphen, apostrophe or period is my doing, to say nothing of sentences,
paragraphs and a whole chapter. Because I have been traveling, I have
not even seen the published book and have only sketchy, second hand
reports of what it says.

I have indeed been in touch with Bugliosi; we have talked on the
telephone and I provided him with some documents. That is the full
extent of my involvement in his book.

I cannot imagine what prompted Lifton to make such a stunningly false
allegation about me. But false it is. I am not a ghostwriter. I have
never been a ghostwriter. I have no intention of being a ghostwriter.

Since I know unequivocally that Lifton is wrong about the role he
assigned to me, I see no reason to believe he is correct about the
other unidentified writers on whom he has bestowed the credit for
having written Vince Bugliosi's book.

David Lifton owes me an apology.

David Lifton owes Vince Bugliosi an apology."

/s/ Patricia Lambert (July 2, 2007)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/152c32e6339d8670

===============================================

DAVID S. LIFTON BELLOWED:

>>> "If he {Vincent Bugliosi} wants to write about the JFK case, he should stick to the facts." <<<

DVP SAID:

Can David Lifton REALLY not see the astounding hypocrisy that resides
within the above statement.

Mr. Lifton has no more been able to "stick to the facts" in his book
"Best Evidence" than a snowflake could survive in Death Valley in
August. Absolutely incredible. (But hilarious.)

>>> [Lifton:] "Reclaiming History was written (or perhaps "assembled," is a better word) by someone who wants to take credit for it all, without acknowledging the truth about how the book was written." <<<

I guess it's going to take that lawsuit (which Vince B. hinted at) to
get David S. Lifton to shut his trap about the ghostwriting crap after
all.

But, like any good conspiracy-loving kook, Lifton (whose
"ghostwriting" theory has already been totally debunked) will continue
to spin the story to his own perceived advantage for months or years
to come.

Absolutely pathetic.

I'd remind Mr. Lifton to glance at pages 1514 and 1515 of "Reclaiming
History", where Mr. Bugliosi gives full credit to the "two people who
made noteworthy writing contributions" (VB's direct quote from pp.
1514-1515). Those "two people" being Dale K. Myers and Fred Haines.

So much for not "acknowledging" their "noteworthy writing
contributions".

A few more reminders for Mr. Lifton........

"I am proud to say that I have done 99.9 percent of my own research
for everything I wrote in this book (which is typical for me, not
feeling comfortable relying on others to do research for me)." -- Page
1516; "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F.
KENNEDY"; Copyright "2007 by Vincent Bugliosi"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8594afea970a9462

~~~~~~

Culled excerpts from Rosemary Newton's response to Mr. Lifton's
charges:

"This is in response to David Lifton's outrageous, malicious and
contemptible lie regarding Vincent Bugliosi's book, 'Reclaiming

History'. .... I say, unequivocally, that NO section of Mr. Bugliosi's

book was ghostwritten. How do I know? Simple. I was the one (as Mr.
Bugliosi's secretary for many years in the writing of this book) who
transcribed a great number of tapes of his dictation and, much more,
and with no exaggeration, thousands of yellow pad sheets of his
handwriting as well as his handwritten faxes on every single section
of the book. I can vouch for the fact that Vincent Bugliosi is a man
of integrity, principle, and I might add, a perfectionist with a
capital "P".

"He is someone who has spent years researching this subject, as
evidenced by the over 10,000 citations in his book (perhaps the most
heavily sourced non-fiction book of any kind ever), which included not
only his countless telephone calls and letters, but personal
interviews as well. Indeed, if anyone looks at the 170 pages of
citations (source notes) in the CD endnote, you will see that at least
99% of the interviews upon which Mr. Bugliosi's book was, in
considerable part, written, were interviews of witnesses he personally
conducted. That, Mr. Lifton, if you are reading this, is what an
author of Vincent Bugliosi's caliber does.

"What could possibly cause you, Mr. Lifton, to tell such an

unmitigated falsehood? ....

"I might add that I took notice of the fact that you did not dwell on
the content of Mr. Bugliosi's dealing with specific issues (e.g.,
autopsy, acoustic, Zapruder film, etc.). Instead, you have made an
allegation that not only is totally false, but completely irrelevant
to the merits of the book. By the way, Mr. Lifton (if you're still
reading this), you called Vincent Bugliosi a "street bully" in his
writing style. But I thought you said ghostwriters wrote his book?"

/s/ Rosemary Newton (July 3 or 4, 2007)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/fbd56181ee3c6af1/?hl=en#

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a86564f3ef2afca

===============================================

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a47a20bf97bab02c/b5ed5ff93f02428f?hl=en#b5ed5ff93f02428f

A FOLLOW-UP:

DAVID S. LIFTON SPEWED:

>>> "{Paul} O'Connor's story never changed. And so the answer is: "Yes, Mr. Bugliosi, O'Connor said that repeatedly..." <<<

DVP RESPONDED:

What difference does it really make WHEN O'Connor told his three-
pronged fairy tale (body bag/no brain/shipping casket), or how many
times he uttered the same crazy triple tale of absurdity? Via scads of
other evidence, O'Connor was still proven dead-wrong each time he told
it.

Yes, Vince made an error when he said O'Connor never told the HSCA his
triple fairy tale prior to 1978. But Vince ACKNOWLEDGES THIS ERROR IN
HIS OWN BOOK. He didn't hide anything. He was being up front
concerning the O'Connor error he made.

But the bigger overall point with respect to Paul O'Connor is:
O'Connor (for whatever reason we can only guess about) said he saw
things that just simply DID NOT OCCUR ON NOV. 22, 1963. And Bugliosi,
rightly so, blasts him regarding those errors.

>>> [Lifton:] "I have by no means exhausted my information on the subject of ghostwriting. Nor do I have any real interest in figuring out who wrote the original drafts of each and every chapter..." <<<

But it was nice of you, David, not to slander Patricia Lambert's name
again, as you continue your anti-Bugliosi campaign and your
unsupportable quest to prove that "Reclaiming History" was
"ghostwritten".

Is Patricia off the hook now? And would you care to apologize for your
error with respect to Ms. Lambert? Or would you rather remain wishy-
washy on that particular subject too?

>>> [Lifton:] "{The various sections of "Reclaiming History"} do seem to be written in markedly different styles." <<<

This is total nonsense, of course. I've read the whole book cover-to-
cover (and all the endnotes too), and there is positively no
difference in writing "style" or technique throughout the book. It's
ALL VINCE B. from start to finish.

And the next silly allegation is?.....

>>> [Lifton:] "No doubt, Bugliosi wrote some (and perhaps a lot) of his own book..." <<<

Gee, how nice of Mr. Lifton to make such a heartwarming concession.

(Who's got the "eyeroll" icon? I need it here....badly.)

>>> [Lifton:] "There is nothing honorable or nice about the way Bugliosi writes about these issues, or addresses an adversary." <<<

What makes you think that conspiracy authors (such as yourself), who
have distorted history and the true facts surrounding the
assassination of President Kennedy for decades on end, deserve the
SLIGHTEST bit of respect...or deserve to be treated "nice"?

You're living in a dream world, Mr. Lifton (and you obviously have
been living in that world ever since your body-altering fantasy began
in 1966).

Mr. Bugliosi isn't obligated to play "nice" when dealing with
conspiracy-loving theorists who, as I said, have deliberately
distorted the historical record relating to JFK's death (Jim Garrison
and Oliver Stone to name but two additional examples).

In fact, I think Vince was far too polite to some of the CTers that he
writes about in his book. He could have lambasted them even more than
he did. And they would have deserved it (IMO).

An excerpt from "Reclaiming History".....

"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented
level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in
the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent T.
Bugliosi; Page 1066

Sometimes, as they say, the truth hurts, Mr. Lifton.

>>> [Lifton:] "To put it mildly, Bugliosi has an "attitude" problem." <<<

Yeah, I think so too....and that's because he didn't bash your stupid
body-stealing theory NEARLY hard enough in his book. You only got 14
pages, David. Stone and Garrison got 90. You should consider suing
Vince for equal time. After all, your nonsense is just as good as
Jim's and Oliver's, right?

>>> [Lifton:] "The JFK assassination is a very complex problem." <<<

It's only "complex" due to people like you, who have distorted history
(big-time). Vince Bugliosi is merely "reclaiming" that distorted
history.

>>> [Lifton:] "The NY Times reporter who interviewed me on the subject noted that Mr. Bugliosi "is not an immodest man," an understatement if there ever was one." <<<

LOL. Which means, of course, just the opposite of what the reporter
(and you) intended it to mean. For, if Vince is "not immodest" (as
claimed above)....then he's....modest.

>>> [Lifton:] "If, as Mr. Bugliosi says, "this is a book of inserts," then I believe I know very well what that probably means. Substantial amounts of writing were done by third parties..." <<<

Another LOL.

This is just EXACTLY the sort of hilarious backward mindset exhibited
by CTers that Mr. Bugliosi talks about (at some length) in "Reclaiming
History"....i.e.,

Vincent Bugliosi (per Lifton's theory) has had his book "ghostwritten"
by many different people, but then Vince just goes right ahead AND
PLACES WORDS IN HIS BOOK THAT (per Lifton) LEAD STRAIGHT TO THE NOTION
THAT THE BOOK WAS, IN FACT, GHOSTWRITTEN (via VB's remark about using
gobs of "inserts").

That's very similar, IMO, to when the CTers claim that a certain JFK-
assassination conspirator did something to advance the "covert,
secretive plot", but then they just went right ahead and WROTE UP A
MEMO OR SOME OTHER DOCUMENT that can be accessed by researchers in
future years that would prove the existence of the conspiracy the
plotters should have been desperately attempting to hide at all costs.

So, per this VB example, I guess Vince wanted to keep it a secret that
the book was ghostwritten, but he decided (for whatever reason) to
place in that very same book evidence (per Lifton) that shows the book
was ghostwritten.

I love the "CT Mindset". (Mainly because I don't have a mindset like
that.) ;)

One more time (for effect)......

"I am proud to say that I have done 99.9 percent of my own research
for everything I wrote in this book (which is typical for me, not
feeling comfortable relying on others to do research for me)." -- Page
1516; "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F.
KENNEDY"; Copyright "2007 by Vincent Bugliosi"

All lies...right, DSL?

And to think...David said on Black Op Radio that he (David Lifton) was
thinking about suing Vincent Bugliosi! That would be like Lee Harvey
Oswald threatening to sue the city of Dallas for false arrest on
11/22/63.

Vince has the conspiracy-loving crowd all worked up into a foaming-at-
the-mouth lather. It's utterly hysterical to watch too....particularly
Mr. Lifton's pathetic attempts (via mile-long "I Was Right After All"
type of posts) to reconcile in his own mind the validity of his
worthless "ghostwriting" tale.

Lifton's next chapter will probably be subtitled --- Bugliosi wrote
nothing! Arlen Specter wrote the whole "RH" tome by himself in
Pennsylvania!

BTW, Vince said on a radio interview that his wife actually came up
with the title for the book ("Reclaiming History")....a title that
fits perfectly, too, IMO. So, I guess this will give Mr. Lifton yet
another "subcontractor" to chew on.

David Von Pein
July 6, 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c027e4d0a9f1141a

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/news/news_07050701.htm

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f8e6564fbd062a02

===============================================

And here is Dale Myers' excellent article about Mr. Lifton's silly
allegations:

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/news/news_07050701.htm

===============================================

[Dave Reitzes]

Barb,

Please, I beg of you, stop saying "irregardless." It's not a word.

That's all.

Dave \:^)

On Jul 15, 10:00?pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>

wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2007 20:36:44 -0400, Russ Burr <rdc...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> On 15 Jul 2007 13:43:03 -0400, "R J Johnson"

> >> <rj.john...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
> >>>news:iddk93t34157g2b1c...@4ax.com...
> >>>: On 15 Jul 2007 10:56:19 -0400, "R J Johnson"

> >>>: <rj.john...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >>>:
> >>>: >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message

[Barb Junkkarinen]

On 21 Jul 2007 14:18:37 -0400, Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote:

>Barb,
>
>Please, I beg of you, stop saying "irregardless." It's not a word.

QUOTE
irregardless
One entry found for irregardless.

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the
early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to
the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most
frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word."
There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech,
although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its
reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way
from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

END QUOTE
>
>That's all.

Irregardless.<g>

And I firmly deny being even a gleam in anyone's eye in the "early
20th century"! I thought you'd been fluent in Barbalese for years now!

Barb :-)

[David Von Pein]

I knew Dave R. was gonna get hit between the eyes by Barb with that
"irregardless" thing. I could see it coming. :)

And Barb even uses the same dictionary I use:

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

[Barb Junkkarinen]

On 21 Jul 2007 21:36:58 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

Irregardless, we can't seem to agree on the definition of several
things. :-^) LOL!

Barb :-)
>

[Dave Reitzes]

Well, I was never one to flaunt convention, but that simply doesn't jive.
I'm going to have to disregard your blatantly obstrufferous behavior. I
apologize, but I simply have to nip this sort of thing in the butt.

Supposably.

Dave

[Barb Junkkarinen]

ROTFL! Love it!

Barb :-)

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Well, I was never one to flaunt convention, but that simply doesn't
jive. I'm going to have to disregard your blatantly obstrufferous
behavior. I apologize, but I simply have to nip this sort of thing in the
butt." <<<

"Well! I never!!"

http://www.jackbenny.org/Pix/Portraits/1961_1974/benny%20gesture.jpg

[Jack Benny on:]

"Rochester!! I just got a letter from a Harvard professor about my
last show."

[Jack reads letter; then goes to the dictionary to look something
up...]

"Rochester?! Did you know 'execrable' means 'lousy'?"

[Jack off.] ... Oops. Maybe I should have said "Jack Benny quote
turned off". Sorry.

Jack's right though; it does mean 'lousy'. Just take a gander...or
even a look-see:

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/execrable