Bugliosi's new book---too large and too expensive (and redundant) for anyone to care?
SecretServiceguy
Bugliosi, best known as Charles Manson's prosecutor, spent more than
20 years writing this defense of the Warren Commission's conclusion
that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the slaying of President
Kennedy, but his obsession has produced a massive tome that's likely
to overwhelm most readers. At times, the author seems determined to
present every detail his researches revealed, even if it doesn't add
to the overall picture (like a footnote on Elvis sightings). Further,
while Bugliosi says even serious conspiracy theorists don't claim the
FBI or Secret Service were involved, he devotes chapters to each
[***HE BOUGHT MY BOOK BACK IN 1998--WONDER IF I AM MENTIONED???]. The
book's structure-it's organized by subject, such as theories about the
role of the FBI, the KGB or anti-Castro Cubans-leads to needless
repetition, and, for an author who excoriates conspiracy theorists,
charging them with carelessness and making wild accusations, Bugliosi
is not always temperate in his language; for example, twice he makes
the nonsensical claim that some Warren Commission critics "were
screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal bullet had come to
rest." His decision to devote twice as many pages to critiquing Oliver
Stone's movie JFK as to his chapter on organized crime (identified by
the chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassination as
the likely conspirators) is a curious one, as is the choice to open
the book with a dramatic re-creation of events surrounding the
assassination rather than a straightforward chronology of the relevant
facts. Moreover, Bugliosi does not always probe whether individuals
who are the sole source for certain facts (for example, Oswald's
widow, Marina) had any motive to lie. Bugliosi's voluminous endnotes
are on an accompanying CD. Gerald Posner's 1993 Case Closed made most
of the same points in a much more concise way. 32 pages of illus.
(May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier
Inc. All rights reserved.
vince palamara
http://www.myspace.com/secretservicejfk
http://www.myspace.com/vincepalamara
Presentation at Slippery Rock University 3/22/07: went really
well!!!!!!
please see--
http://www.sru.edu/pages/13892.asp
AND
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07081/771352-54.stm
***and***
http://www.jfk-assassination.net/palamara/
There were about 120 people there and the response was fantastic! This
was, without question, the best, longest, and most comprehensive
presentation I ever gave (and it was filmed). Well pleased.:)
cdddraftsman
His decision to devote twice as many pages to critiquing Oliver
Stone's movie JFK as to his chapter on organized crime (identified by
the chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassination as
the likely conspirators) is a curious one .
TL replied :
What could be possible excuse for you to find this curious , when the
conclusions of of the HSCA on a Mafia Plot have been so seriously
discredited as to render those last minute , hastily thrown together
conclusions , tempered by public pressure to produce some tasty
morsel of conspiracy to munch on , are in effect null and void ?
If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion . Stick to your
specialty of non-involvment of the SS in any plot to kill
JFK and leave the book reviewing to DVP ! OK Tiger ?
................................tl
> http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kenn...
>
> vince palamarahttp://www.myspace.com/secretservicejfkhttp://www.myspace.com/vincepalamara
SecretServiceguy
LOL
vince palamara:)
> >vincepalamarahttp://www.myspace.com/secretservicejfkhttp://www.myspace.com/vincepa...
> > Presentation at Slippery Rock University 3/22/07: went really
> > well!!!!!!
>
> > please see--
>
> >http://www.sru.edu/pages/13892.asp
>
> > AND
>
> >http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07081/771352-54.stm
>
> > ***and***
>
> >http://www.jfk-assassination.net/palamara/
>
> > There were about 120 people there and the response was fantastic! This
> > was, without question, the best, longest, and most comprehensive
> > presentation I ever gave (and it was filmed). Well pleased.:)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Interesting to note that Bugliosi has previously indicated a *belief* in a
conspiracy... (both RFK - which he *argued* in court, and JFK).
It seems that lawyers are capable of believing whoever pays them.
In article <1174942913....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
SecretServiceguy says...
>Copyright =A9 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier
>Inc. All rights reserved.
>
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp=
>/0393045250/ref=3Dcm_cr-mr-title/104-0202782-0008741
RICLAND
> Interesting to note that Bugliosi has previously indicated a *belief* in a
> conspiracy... (both RFK - which he *argued* in court, and JFK).
>
> It seems that lawyers are capable of believing whoever pays them.
Further,
>while Bugliosi says even serious conspiracy theorists don't claim the
>FBI or Secret Service were involved, he devotes chapters to each
>[***HE BOUGHT MY BOOK BACK IN 1998--WONDER IF I AM MENTIONED???]
>
If Bugliosi believes serious theorists don't claim the FBI or Secret
Service was involved, he doesn't know what this discussion is really about.
One of the preeminent conspiracy theorists is Mark Lane. Besides his
best seller "Rush to Judgment" -- the book that started it all -- Lane
successfully represented Liberty Lobby against E. Howard Hunt's
defamation suit. This suit turned on the question of whether Hunt, a CIA
agent, was involved in the assassination. Hunt lost the suit. The jury
decided Liberty Lobby hadn't defamed him by publishing an article citing
a CIA memo that said he was involved.
Which prompts this question: Was this lawsuit mentioned in Bugliosi's
book? And more specifically, was this CIA memo mentioned?
Also, judging from Bugliosi's performance in "The Trial of Lee Harvey
Oswald," I find it hard to regard him as serious researcher. During this
trial he employed lawyer tactics not a deep knowledge of the case.
For example, in his summation he said things like, "Oswald is nuts
because who would kill the president except a nut?" and "Oswald was too
unreliable to be a hitman. Who would hire a person like him to do a job
as big as assassinate the president?"
In other words, he presented no new information that could be judged on
its own merits; rather, he gave arguments meant to appeal to the emotion
-- "Oswald is as guilty as sin!"
All of why I suspect Bugliosi's latest book is more a legal exercise
than a credible research one. I think it would show how to win the case
in court, not how the crime actually happened.
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/2qgodj
aeffects
Lane felt the WCR was a Prosecutors brief, do you agree?
> ricland
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <1174942913.228307.5...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >>http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kenn...
RICLAND
I'm not sure I understand your question.
ricland.
Ben Holmes
says...
Of course it was! They actually had a "defense counsel"... who didn't do
anything of note. Most people aren't even aware that the WC included someone
with that function.
As I've demonstrated many times - the WC wasn't interested in any "truth" - they
were interested in putting together their 'theory' about what happened... and
made every attempt to discredit eyewitnesses that had inconvenient things to
say.
Speak about an "inconvenient truth"...
Wiggans (As I recall the name - forgive me if I don't have it correct) couldn't
name a *single* eyewitness who was subjected to the polygraph that had testimony
favorable to the WC to give. The WC used polygraphs, among other techniques, to
discredit people.
Bugliosi's tome, should it ever be published, will undoubtably be the same
thing.
aeffects
Mark Lane - Rush to Judgement, 1966 pg.320 para.4
quote on
I believe to the contrary, the report of the President's Commission on
the Assassination of President Kennedy is less a report than a brief
for the prosecution.
quote off
Do you believe as does Mark Lane?
> ricland.
David Von Pein
Please point me to the place where Vince specifically stated, in
court, that HE HIMSELF believed in a conspiracy in JFK's murder during
those VB RFK-related quotes?
VB was talking about how people IN GENERAL felt about political
assassinations, including both RFK's and JFK's. But I don't think VB
ever once said that HE HIMSELF believed in a JFK conspiracy....mainly,
I'm sure, because he said those things re. the RFK case many years
BEFORE he, himself, ever started deeply investigating JFK's death.
So, once more, Ben shows us what he is -- a person incapable of
evaluating anything in its correct context.
Plus -- Even if Vince HAD stated his belief (many, many years ago) in
a possible conspiracy in the JFK murder --- so what? It would have
been stated well before the '86 Mock Trial, and well before he
researched the case in any depth at all. So even via that latter
scenario, Ben is dead in the water re. this stupid statement Ben made
today:
"It seems that lawyers are capable of believing whoever pays them." --
Ben-Kook
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/662810b32524ab39
RICLAND
The Warren Commission was shameful. It did things even a prosecutor
wouldn't do. It let Arlen Specter, a man with no background in medicine
or ballistics, create a single bullet theory doctors and ballistics men
have laughed at for the past 45 years.
It simply ignored all testimony and evidence that didn't point to
Oswald. And, most shamefully, its junior lawyers coerced or simply
distorted what witnesses said.
ricland
David Von Pein
That must be why EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 9 members of the FPP/HSCA
panel endorsed that "laughable" SBT theory, huh?
And the theory is so "laughable" that its inner workings and
measurements and alignments somehow were made completely workable and
doable via a Zapruder Film overlay and "Key Framing" project done by
animator and author Dale K. Myers:
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm
The SBT works. Live with that fact, or live with a two-shot or three-
shot "replacement" to the SBT that has so many more UNEXPLAINABLES and
SBT-like coincidences it ain't even funny (or remotely possible
either).
>>> "It {the evil WC} simply ignored all testimony and evidence that didn't point to Oswald." <<<
You haven't read a single page of the Warren Report, have you, Ric?
Fess up. You haven't touched the thing, have you?
In point of simple fact, more than 18% of the entire 888-page WCR (164
pages) is devoted exclusively to the subject of "Possible Conspiracy".
Why not read these pages sometime. Couldn't hurt, could it? (Except
your skewed anti-WCR views, that is.)......
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0134a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0331a.htm
lazu...@webtv.net
witnessess are right there was a conspiracy, so who cares what Bugliosi
has to say more than anyone on this board...My opinion of him is a
little higher than Lowry or Grizz, about on the level of Von Pein IOW-
he might be a decent guy away from this case, but practically every
conclusion he will write on the JFK murder is worth about 2 pollock
shits in a chinamen's whorehouse... Laz
David Von Pein
"As surely as I am standing here, and surely as night follows day, Lee
Harvey Oswald -- acting alone -- was responsible for the murder of
President John F. Kennedy." -- Vince Bugliosi
"Oswald, from his own lips, TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was
guilty....almost the same as if he had said 'I murdered President
Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us? Well, the lies he told,
one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt. If
Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny purchasing
that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why did he even
deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary to do that
if he's innocent?" -- VB
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- VB
=============================
WORTHY OF A REPLAY OR TWO (FOR THE HARD-OF-HEARING CTers AMONG US):
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- VB
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- VB
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HNmqJO4dFDE
=============================
"Pollock shits"?????
~shrug~
Papa Andy
Sen Russell was promised a footnote but that never was included
which is why Russell help CTs
A
aeffects
> In article <1174954554.071292.84...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
Walter E Craig, the then President of the American Bar Assoiciation,
was the guy...
Gerald Ford at Craig's appointment:
--quote on--
...Walter Craig represents the ethical conscience of the American
Bar...
--quote off--
Lane covers Walter Craig's Commission investigation participation,
also covers/mentions 6th Amendment issues ... Rush to Judgement, 1966,
pgs.321 This Craig guy was hailed by the press as a second coming type
such as "Clarence Darrow"?
Amazing, the guy was hardly present and when present asked next to no
questions. Perhaps he didn't want to get in the way and display his
ignorance of the issues? There is NO record he Craig (or his
associates) ever attended one of the 25,000 interviews... Not bad for
someone overseeing the defense counsel side of the hearing....
Oswald was dead, he needed no defense, PERIOD!. When in reality;
Oswald was not there to participate in his own defense, he needed
defense counsel standng more than EVER at those hearings...
lazu...@webtv.net
Lane trial, naming names ..several that do check out..Rolling Stone is
one of the most popular publications..it's really looking bad for the
lone nutters... Maybe David H. is right $ 1.99 at KMart 6
months..well..more like $5.99 probably, but the sentiment is greatly
appreciated..younger Laz
aeffects
Hey Younger.....
going back to Posner's Case Closed date of publication the $1.99 makes
sense, with daBugliosi's tome the then $1.99 when inflation is
factored in, the price jumps to about $4.33 in today's dollars...... :)
David Von Pein
Senator Russell was a goofball. Plain and simple.
At least the WC had some very good lawyers working for them to figure
things out in a correct and logical manner.
ANYONE looking at the sum total of evidence (as well as the LACK of
evidence that SHOULD have been there if the SBT is wrong) can only
arrive at a "SBT" conclusion. It's so obvious, it's not funny.
But Goofball Russell would rather totally DISMISS (during his phone
call to LBJ) all of that TOTALITY of pro-SBT evidence, and instead
assert that he can't believe that the gunman could have missed the
"whole darn automobile with that first shot" and also hit Kennedy
almost perfectly with the other two shots.
Hence (in Goofball Russell's eyes), the first missed shot somehow
means the SBT is unbelievable....even though in order to NOT believe
in the SBT, Russell and everybody else has no choice but to believe in
gobs and gobs of even MORE unbelievable shit re. the two-man wounding
of JFK & JBC.
As I said, Russell was a goof. He must have done NO homework regarding
the details of the shooting whatsoever (especially with respect to the
SBT in particular). And neither did the FBI with its impossible "3
Shots & 3 Hits" scenario via its 12/9/63 initial report.
Thank goodness Specter, Belin, and Ball were on the "ball". Those guys
were, as Vince Bugliosi has also said, "prodigious" with respect to
the work they did for the WC. Thank goodness...otherwise Goofball
Russell's silly anti-SBT assertions might have made it into the Warren
Report.
tomnln
Belin was a Whacko
Spector is a Felon Griffin subourned Perjury from witness Patrick Dean.
Your position is Crumbling.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175052641....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
But, of course, that's NOT just an "opinion"...right Mr. Nutsack?
tomnln
Gutless KOOK-SUCKER.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175053911.6...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> Interesting to note that Bugliosi has previously indicated a *belief* in a
> conspiracy... (both RFK - which he *argued* in court, and JFK).
Yah, Ben, Lawyer say things to convince a jury their client is
innocent.
> It seems that lawyers are capable of believing whoever pays them.
And they are paid for that service.
Bud
How could an investigation into the activities of a guilty man not
appear as one?
> They actually had a "defense counsel"... who didn't do
> anything of note. Most people aren't even aware that the WC included someone
> with that function.
And Ben isn`t aware that the kooks would be unsatisfied with the
process no matter what was done, if the result was a finding of no
conspiracy.
> As I've demonstrated many times - the WC wasn't interested in any "truth" -
That the CT here aren`t interested in the truth is monstrated
daily here.
> they
> were interested in putting together their 'theory' about what happened... and
> made every attempt to discredit eyewitnesses that had inconvenient things to
> say.
The kooks discredit the witnesses that it can be verified saw
something significant. Witnesses to the shooter at both murder scene,
witnesses in the vicintity of the Tippit murder who saw Oz with a gun
running from the direction of that murder, ect. They think "puff of
smoke" witnesses are more important.
> Speak about an "inconvenient truth"...
>
> Wiggans (As I recall the name - forgive me if I don't have it correct) couldn't
> name a *single* eyewitness who was subjected to the polygraph that had testimony
> favorable to the WC to give. The WC used polygraphs, among other techniques, to
> discredit people.
Wesley Buell Frazier gave testimony that would have damaged Oswald.
He was given a lie detector, mainly because he gave Oz and his rifle a
ride to work.
> Bugliosi's tome, should it ever be published, will undoubtably be the same
> thing.
Of course it will from Ben`s perspective. It will have the throat
wound as a wound of exit. It will work with three shots from the 6th
floor of the TSBD, something most kooks dispute. It won`t bother
working with any of the information you kooks have wrong, as erroneous
information is useless to work with (which explains the kook`s
inability to put a scenario on the table that covers the known
evidence. When you misunderstand and misrepresent every bit of
information, when it comes time to put what you have together, it
doesn`t fit).
tomnln
One of them Suborned Perjury from a witness. proven)
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1175073101.0...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
eca...@tx.rr.com
> wouldn't do. It let Arlen Specter, a man with no background in medicine
> or ballistics, create a single bullet theory doctors and ballistics men
> have laughed at for the past 45 years.
>
> It simply ignored all testimony and evidence that didn't point to
> Oswald. And, most shamefully, its junior lawyers coerced or simply
> distorted what witnesses said.
>
> ricland
Ricland it wasn't 45 years; it has been
only 43.. And competent researchers are
not "laughing" at the SBT as you
mistakenly think.. To the contray, the
tide has shifted greatly in that area,
especially since Dale Myer's video.
In a nutshell
I have 2 questions
for you:
**********************
1) Can you specifically list the parts
of the WCR that you deem "shameful?"
2) Where did the neck exit round go?
**********************
MR ;~D 1910Mar2807
>
> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/2qgodj- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
You've been Dodging it for 6 months.
WHO is ed cage>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/ed_cage_page.htm
Your own words Prove you to be a Lying Phony.
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1175127059....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Papa Andy
if you couldn't use words like 'goofball' or 'kook' you'd be silent
you prattle on about Bugliosi's "trial" of LHO
but when an experienced US Senator is more than a juror, a member of
the WC, with full access to the data, no judge to order him out of the
room or strike witnesses or testimony and the best you can do is
'goofball'
how many undecideds do you think became LNers as a result of this
exercise in "logic"
A
David Von Pein
And I thought you'd enjoy the fact that I kicked a WC member in the
teeth (sort of), with my "goofball" statement re. Russell. ;)
Just look up the hundreds of WC transcripts and try to find "Sen.
Russell's" name in there more than just a very few times. Did he ask a
single witness a single question? (He probably did a few times, but
not very many. Those are hard to come by at any rate.)
And Dick's Sept. '64 phone call to LBJ is laughable in an anti-SBT
fashion. It's as if Specter's detailed explanation re. the SBT (which
I can only assume Russell had full knowledge of) just zoomed right
over his head. Silly.
But, at least he had the sense to sign the Final Report.
But, of course, Russell didn't want to be on the Commission in the
first place. Probably resented LBJ for the whole 10 months for forcing
him to be "my man" (Johnson's) on the WC.
As I said, thank goodness for good thorough lawyers/investigators like
Specter, Belin, and Ball. They did 100 times the work Russell did (or
any of the other figurehead Commissioners). The WC conclusions were
really reached by "S,B,&B", not the main 7.