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

[David Von Pein]

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

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

The biggest additions come in these segments of the series:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Reitzes]

Thanks very much, David. I haven't seen this in a long time and it's a
treat to see it again.

Poor Gerry Spence. I was a CT when I saw this show for the first time.
I thought Spence was a clown then, and if I feel any more sympathetic
towards him now, it's only because I understand how little he had to
work with.

Dave

[Anthony Marsh]

Any change you'll ever find the mock ABA trial? I wanted to convert that
from VHS to DVD, but my machine broke.

[John McAdams]

On 23 Feb 2012 11:35:51 -0500, Anthony Marsh

Is there a video of the trial itself?

I have the FAA infomercial, but not any video of the entire trial.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH ASKED:

>>> "Any chance you'll ever find the mock ABA trial?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN REPLIED:

I doubt it. But I'd very much like to have a copy of that 1992 ABA mock
trial (if any video version even exists). I have no idea if it was
recorded on film or videotape or not.

Another "trial" program that is quite good and intriguing is Larry
Buchanan's 1964 courtroom movie, "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" (not to
be confused with the Lorne Greene/Ben Gazzara 1977 TV movie of the same
title).

Buchanan's '64 film is quite interesting. And the most interesting aspect
of it (to me) is the timing of when it was filmed. It was made within
weeks or months of the assassination, and debuted in a Milwaukee theater
(incredibly) on April 22, 1964, which was a point in time when the Warren
Commission hadn't even come close to finishing its investigation.

I've watched the Buchanan film several times, and about the only really
blatant error that I remember seeing in the movie is when the prosecutor
elicits testimony from a witness that indicated that all three of the
bullets that were fired by Oswald during the assassination were recovered
and were in evidence at the trial.

But even that error is an understandable one from the filmmakers' POV, due
to the lack of additional information about Jim Tague's wounding and the
SBT, which is info that Buchanan did not have by the time his low-budget
film was rushed into theaters in April of '64.

All things considered, Buchanan's "trial" film is remarkably accurate in
most of the details. And one of the witnesses in the film is played by
James Altgens. (He doesn't play himself, however.)

The DVD of Buchanan's film is still in print and available at Amazon (as
of this writing anyway). I have this DVD, but I can't take the VOD files
off of the disc, due to the copy protection device that's attached to it:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000CG8H1?ie=UTF8&tag=dvsre-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B0000CG8H1

[Anthony Marsh]

I recorded most of it on VHS.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Spence took a dive, for the money.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/23/2012 7:39 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "Any chan[c]e you'll ever find the mock ABA trial?"<<<

>
> I doubt it. But I'd very much like to have a copy of that 1992 ABA mock
> trial (if any video version even exists). I have no idea if it was
> recorded on film or videotape or not.
>
> Another "trial" program that is quite good and intriguing is Larry
> Buchanan's 1964 courtroom movie, "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" (not to
> be confused with the Lorne Greene/Ben Gazzara 1977 TV movie of the same
> title).
>
> Buchanan's '64 film is quite interesting. And the most interesting aspect
> of it (to me) is the timing of when it was filmed. It was made within
> weeks or months of the assassination, and debuted in a Milwaukee theater
> (incredibly) on April 22, 1964, which was a point in time when the Warren
> Commission hadn't even come close to finishing its investigation.
>
> I've watched the Buchanan film several times, and about the only really
> blatant error that I remember seeing in the movie is when the prosecutor

> had Dr. Humes on the witness stand (an actor played Humes) and testimony
> was elicited that indicated that all three of the bullets in the

> assassination were recovered and were in evidence at the trial.
>

That's perfectly in line with what many of the WC defenders say,
carelessly talking about the "bullets" recovered from the limo. Not
remembering that CE 567 and 569 were only FRAGMENTS of bullets. You could
helps reduce that error rate by correcting your fellow WC defenders some
time instead of always leaving it to me to clean up your own house.

> But even that error is an understandable one from the filmmakers' POV, due
> to the lack of additional information about Jim Tague's wounding and the
> SBT, which is info that Buchanan did not have by the time his low-budget
> film was rushed into theaters in April of '64.
>

> The DVD of Buchanan's film is still in print and available at Amazon (as
> of this writing anyway). I have this DVD, but I can't take the VOD files
> off of the disc, due to the copy protection device that's attached to it:
>

I can't tell you how to do it, but there is a way to get around the copy
protection. But you can't just use ANY DVD program to do it. Copy
protection schemes keep changing every day and you need a program which
updates every week to keep up with them. Forget Nero. They may update
every decade.

> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000CG8H1?ie=UTF8&tag=dvsre-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B0000CG8H1
>

[pjsp...@aol.com]

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

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

[Chuck Schuyler]

Bwahahaha!

Spence is part of that teeny, tiny conspiracy you talk about. Oh,
that's right...you now admit "millions" are in on the post-crime
"cover-up."

What would the "research community" do without guys like you and Tom
Rossley and Jim Fetzer and gang?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "That's perfectly in line with what many of the WC defenders say,
carelessly talking about the "bullets" recovered from the limo. Not
remembering that CE 567 and 569 were only FRAGMENTS of bullets. You could
helps reduce that error rate by correcting your fellow WC defenders some
time instead of always leaving it to me to clean up your own house." <<<

You're silly, Tony. I've yet to meet any LNer on the Internet who has said
that three bullets were recovered. So it's highly doubtful that W. Anthony
Marsh has ever had to correct any "WC defender" about the obvious fact
that the third bullet was not recovered, since everybody knows that CE567
& 569 are fragments from just one bullet.

The only person I know of who ever made the claim that three bullets were
recovered is J. Edgar Hoover, who told LBJ exactly that on 11/29/63. Then
too, Edgar was wrong about a several things in the early stages of the
FBI's investigation.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Bugliosi cites the transcript repeatedly in his book, including a
number of citations to the transcript from sections of the program NEVER
shown the American public. It would be nice to know what else was said,
don't you think?" <<<

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

And, yes, I have asked Mr. Bugliosi about possibly getting a copy of the
transcript and/or the video version of the whole trial. Vince, in turn,
referred me to his lawyer friend Jack Duffy in Fort Worth. Vince told me
that Jack had VHS copies of the entire 21-hour trial. I e-mailed Mr. Duffy
a few years ago and asked him about the tapes. I never received a
response. I was totally ignored.

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

[Jean Davison]

I hope you will, David. You might make the argument that
this should be part of the public record.

Jean

[bigdog]

> Dave- Hide quoted text -
>

Spence's folksy style has been quite effective in real trials. He never
lost one a criminal trial in his entire career as both a prosecutor and
defense attorney. The guy evidently has knack for connecting with a jury.
His problem was that he had a case that wasn't winnable, at least not with
someone as effective as Bugliosi on the other side. Bugliosi only lost one
trial in his career. He might have had a chance if Marsha Clark was
prosecuting.

[bigdog]

On Feb 22, 10:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

When I first saw it, Geraldo Rivera was hosting it and I think it was
around the time of Oliver Stone's movie being released. I'm guessing that
Geraldo's production company bought the rights to it and then Geraldo
spliced in his interviews with Spence and Bugliosi at the begiining and
ending of each episode. (If I remember, he played it in 3 parts). It
created the impression with me that Geraldo was covering this trial as it
happened, but it was many years later I learned that his was just a
rebroadcast.

[David Von Pein]

I think the Geraldo re-broadcast was in 1988, three years before
Stone's fantasy film came out.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did you ever hear of Google Groups?

Path:
g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!panix!panix1.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: For John "Bigdog" Corbett .... !
Date: 13 Jun 2011 23:56:51 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com

The proof the rifle was fired were the recovered bullets and shells
which could only have been fired by that rifle.

"Bullets" plural.

AND:

Add to
this the fact that the only recovered bullets matched a rifle that was
found in a location behind JFK and your claim that the Z-film is the
only indication for the direction of the shots becomes ludicrous.


"Bullets" plural.

[timstter]

LOL! That's ridiculous, Marsh. I've watched the trial MANY times.
Spence simply had nothing to work with, though he did the best with
what he had.

The brilliance of Bugliosi's preparation shines through. He builds a
persuasive case against Oswald.

Corrective Regards,

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

[timstter]

On Feb 24, 11:48 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 2/23/2012 11:37 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 23 Feb 2012 11:35:51 -0500, Anthony Marsh

> > <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:

Why don't you send a copy along to DVP, Marsh? Do something useful,
for a change.

Helpful Regards,

[David Von Pein]

Tony,

Why are you pretending that Bigdog said that three bullets were recovered
in that June 2011 post you highlighted? Bigdog said no such thing. He
merely said "bullets" (plural), which is 100% correct. Meaning (of
course): TWO bullets. Not three.

And John Corbett most certainly knows that THREE bullets were not
recovered. Moreover, he never said three bullets were recovered.

So, why in heck did you even bring up John's 2011 post above, Tony? It
doesn't do anything to refute this earlier comment that I made:

"The only person I know of who ever made the claim that three
bullets were recovered is J. Edgar Hoover, who told LBJ exactly that on

11/29/63." -- DVP

[Canuck]

On Feb 25, 10:43 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I think the Geraldo re-broadcast was in 1988, three years before
> Stone's fantasy film came out.

I make reference to the trial in my article "Jean Hill - The Lady in Red"
(page 7), available at http://www.jfk-info.com/whitmey8.htm. I was
somewhat surprised that Jean Hill wasn't included (or Mary Moorman). I
wrote to producer Mark Redhead of London Weekend Television and he replied
that he vaguely recalled the defense deciding not to include Jean (who had
been flown to London) because of her ever-changing description of what she
saw and heard. Paul Hoch had mentioned in his newsletter "Echoes of
Conspiracy" that the full version included three more witnesses and that
three others weren't used. However, as it was 21 hrs. long, you would
think there were many more witnesses in the original broadcast. If not,
what in the world took up 15 1/2 hrs. extra time? Possibly LWT would
still have that information.

As I mention in my article, the edited trial was a "Giraldo" special in
1988, with Giraldo broadcasting "live" from Elm St. beneath the TSBD,
giving the impression that the trial was taking place in Dallas. It was
broadcast by A&E in 1992. - prwhitmey

[John McAdams]

On 24 Feb 2012 19:06:49 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

Is this the fellow:

http://www.jackgduffy.com/

Or does the "Jr." mean his dad is the one with the tapes?

If so, the old man does not seem to be practicing law anymore:

http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&Template=/CustomSource/MemberDirectory/Search_Form_Client_Main.cfm


.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Or does the "Jr." mean his dad is the one with the tapes?" <<<

I don't really know. But, yes, that Jack G. Duffy is the one I was
referring to, because I recognize that website. And it was through
that site's e-mail that I wrote Duffy to ask him about the tapes.
Never got an answer.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/25/2012 8:37 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> Why are you pretending that Bigdog said that three bullets were recovered
> in that June 2011 post you highlighted? Bigdog said no such thing. He
> merely said "bullets" (plural), which is 100% correct. Meaning (of
> course): TWO bullets. Not three.
>

So now you claim TWO bullets were recovered. Next month when I point out
to other WC defenders that some WC defenders claim that TWO bullets were
recovered and post your message as proof you will deny ever writing it.
Just as I had to correct Bigdog I have to correct you.

Only one bullet was recovered. Neither of the two large fragments
recovered were intact bullets. That's why we call them fragments instead
of bullets. We know you consider CE399 as one of the two bullets
recovered. Show me the second bullet and tell me the CE number.

> And John Corbett most certainly knows that THREE bullets were not
> recovered. Moreover, he never said three bullets were recovered.
>
> So, why in heck did you even bring up John's 2011 post above, Tony? It
> doesn't do anything to refute this earlier comment that I made:
>
> "The only person I know of who ever made the claim that three
> bullets were recovered is J. Edgar Hoover, who told LBJ exactly that on
> 11/29/63." -- DVP
>

But you never quoted Hoover saying to LBJ, "We found all three bullets."
Where is your damn quote?

[Anthony Marsh]

A copy of what, how? I explained that my machine broke. New machines
prevent the user from copying VHS tapes.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/25/2012 8:35 PM, timstter wrote:

It's like listening to a softball interview and the interviewer refuses
to ask the tough follow up question.

[bigdog]

Thanks for the support Dave. This illustrates why I quit conversing with
Tony quite a while ago. He won't respond to what people actually write. He
invents things they never wrote and responds to that instead. There is no
point in trying to engage in a dialogue with someone who won't address the
arguments you actually make..

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Show me the second bullet and tell me the CE number." <<<

CE567/569. (Of course.)

>>> "But you never quoted Hoover saying to LBJ, "We found all three
bullets." Where is your damn quote?" <<<

At 8:07 of the audio file below.

LBJ -- "How many shots were fired?"

HOOVER -- "Three. .... And we have them."

http://www.box.com/shared/x143w38kk4

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, and "them" refers to cartridges found in the sniper's nest. Not
bullets. I asked you for "three bullets." Instead you pull a Harris.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Yeah, and "them" refers to cartridges found in the sniper's nest."
<<<

What in the world makes you think that? Hoover goes directly from saying
"we have them" to talking about the BULLETS themselves that were
recovered. Not the shells.

Two minutes later in the 11/29 phone call, Hoover does talk about the
three shells. But he's not talking about SHELLS at the earlier 8- minute
point in the audio. He's clearly referring to BULLETS in that portion of
the conversation.

It doesn't matter a bit, of course. I'm just trying to counter Tony's
incorrect interpretation of Hoover's comments. And, as we all know by now,
Marsh will argue about anything--even when he agrees with you. (Hence, his
record-high number of aaj posts.)

Hoover was, of course, dead wrong about three bullets being recovered,
just as he was wrong about several other things in that same 11/29 phone
call -- like when he claims the whole bullet fell out of Kennedy's head at
Parkland. (That's a real doozy of an error there, indicating that even as
of 11/29, Hoover didn't know some of the basic facts of the case his
Bureau was working on.)

[timstter]

I don't think that's true. His cross examination of Mrs Paine is quite
harsh, in my view. There are other examples.