"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1986 TV DOCU-TRIAL)(AUDIO & VIDEO EXCERPTS)
David Von Pein
tims...@gmail.com
Hi DVP,
Thanks for posting the links re *LHO: On Trial*.
I would be interested in seeing your transcript of Nelson Delgado's
discussion of Oswald's activities on the shooting range, if you have
ever compiled one.
KUTGW, mate!
Kind Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> www.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/2d1eebb7...
David Von Pein
>>> "I would be interested in seeing your transcript of Nelson Delgado's discussion of Oswald's activities on the shooting range, if you have ever compiled one." <<<
Yes, to a limited extent, I have done that. I've posted the following
give-&-take between Delgado and Bugliosi on multiple occasions, in
response to CT-Kooks who enjoy dragging out the stale "Oswald Couldn't
Hit The Broad Side Of Marguerite" argument every now and then:
VINCE 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 -- "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."
tims...@gmail.com
Hi DVP,
That's the exchange I was after. Thanks!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
aeffects
> TOP POST
>
> Hi DVP,
>
> That's the exchange I was after. Thanks!
Timmy,
did you have anything to do with the LHO shooting
documentaryrecreation in Australia... Why do I think that Timmy from
down-undah?
aeffects
my another piece of LN trivia, with NO cite. What in the world is the
matter with you David? Lack of DVD sales getting to you? LMFAO!
muc...@gmail.com
No cite(???) It's from the 1986 Showtime/HBO docu-trial, you dolt! Do
we have to bend it in neon for you?
David Von Pein
Healy The Crackpipe apparently thinks I just made up (from whole
cloth) that exchange between Delgado & Bugliosi.
In actuality, though, it's the verbatim verbiage from Nelson & Vince
from July 1986 at the London Trial (c. LWT, Inc. 1986).
I wrote the testimony down, word-for-word, from my VHS videotape copy
of the docu-trial (obtained by DVP in May 2002). Not as easy as it
sounds either. In fact, doing a transcript like the one below strictly
from VHS videotape is a time-consuming and agony-filled nightmare (if
you want to get everything down verbatim, which I did want to do):
http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/2d1eebb7e8de66a0
But, then again, come to think about it, maybe Healy The Kook is
correct --- my copy of the docu-trial is probably a fake. It was
probably phonied-up by the same goofs who altered the Z-Film back in
'63....the same brainless wonders who faked a film to GET RID OF all
signs of conspiracy...and yet they LEFT IN the very thing that spells
"conspiracy" to most people worldwide -- the "Rear Head Snap".
robcap...@netscape.com
Why doesn't Dave mention FaAA/ABA trial of 1992? The one Posner wrote
about in "Case Closed" while only giving part of the story (and none
of the credit to the FaAA). Roger McCarthy, head of FaAA, brought
case against Posner for using only part of the data supplied (the
prosecutors side) and not giving credit to FaAA who had the legal
rights to the data.
The ABA (American Bar Assoc.) approached FaAA to help them put
together a "courtroom of the 21st century" instructional session in
1992. It would be "in the form of a mock trial, for the Annual ABA
meeting, which was to be held that summer in San Francisco." (from
Roger MCCarthy's Affadavit) They would choose the topic of LHO and
the JFK asssassination to due this mock trial on. FaAA would supply
the expert witness analysis, and the testifying experts themselves,
both for the prosecution AND the defense, to simplify the task for the
ABA.
Posner was given this data but ONLY USE THE PROSECUTION SIDE OF THE
CASE! This is key because there was NO verdict. The jury was hung as
to the guilt of LHO. Mr. McCarthy was livid about this betrayal on
Posner's part (what do you expect from Liars for Hires?) as he said:
"Incredibly, Mr. Posner makes no mention of the fact that the mock
jury that heard and saw the technical material that he believes is so
persuasive and "closed" the case, but which also saw the FaAA material
prepared for the defense, COULD NOT reach a verdict." (empahsis mine)
(Roger McCarthy's Affadavit)
muc...@gmail.com
> Healy The Crackpipe apparently thinks I just made up (from whole
> cloth) that exchange between Delgado & Bugliosi.
>
> In actuality, though, it's the verbatim verbiage from Nelson & Vince
> from July 1986 at the London Trial (c. LWT, Inc. 1986).
>
> I wrote the testimony down, word-for-word, from my VHS videotape copy
> of the docu-trial (obtained by DVP in May 2002). Not as easy as it
> sounds either. In fact, doing a transcript like the one below strictly
> from VHS videotape is a time-consuming and agony-filled nightmare (if
> you want to get everything down verbatim, which I did want to do):
>
>
> But, then again, come to think about it, maybe Healy The Kook is
> correct --- my copy of the docu-trial is probably a fake. It was
> probably phonied-up by the same goofs who altered the Z-Film back in
> '63....the same brainless wonders who faked a film to GET RID OF all
> signs of conspiracy...and yet they LEFT IN the very thing that spells
> "conspiracy" to most people worldwide -- the "Rear Head Snap".
You never know with Healy. His mind seems to wander in and out of
reality. Well, mostly out, I guess...
Slip of the fingers: I meant LWT/Showtime (not Showtime/HBO) in my
previous post.
tims...@gmail.com
I don't know why you think anything, ol' Toots-E-Roll fella you, er, I
mean David *aeffects* Healy.
Not sure EXACTLY what you're blathering on about here, me ol' mate.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > > MR. DELGADO -- "Certainly."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Why should he? It's not incumbent on him to do so. If you think that
the FaAA/ABA trial of 1992 is so important then why don't YOU put in
the same hours and patience documenting it that DVP has put into *Lee
Harvey Oswald: On Trial*?
He's been doing that for a number of years now. And when *Reclaiming
History* was published his hard work and faith was rewarded, since
that self same *LHO: On Trial* was cited as the spark for Bugliosi's
landmark work.
Bottom line, Rob; you think FaAA/ABA is important to your side of the
debate, then YOU get off your butt and document it like DVP has done
with the 1986 LWT docudrama, mate.
Sitting around whining and sniping from the sidelines just looks
pathetic, robcap.
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Aug 24, 4:07 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:
David Von Pein
RANDOM QUOTE FROM "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (one of my favorite
quotations from the trial):
"I do think for the historical record it's important that people
understand that Lee [Oswald] was a very ordinary person -- that people
can kill a President without that being something that shows on them
in advance." -- RUTH PAINE; JULY 1986
tims...@gmail.com
Hi DVP,
Good choice! The testimony/cross examination of Mrs Paine is a
highlight of this program. Gerry Spence asks the tough questions, like
a good defence lawyer should, and Mrs Paine holds her own, because she
is an honest and believable witness.
The shabby treatment of Mrs Paine and her husband by JFK-CT types over
the years is quite despicable, in my view. The wonderful Thomas Mallon
book did a great deal to put things to rights, though the damage will
probably never be undone.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
robcap...@netscape.com
> TOP POST
>
> Why should he? It's not incumbent on him to do so. If you think that
> the FaAA/ABA trial of 1992 is so important then why don't YOU put in
> the same hours and patience documenting it that DVP has put into *Lee
> Harvey Oswald: On Trial*?
Just did mate.
> He's been doing that for a number of years now. And when *Reclaiming
> History* was published his hard work and faith was rewarded, since
> that self same *LHO: On Trial* was cited as the spark for Bugliosi's
> landmark work.
Why did they hold the trial in London mate? His "docu-drama" proves
nothing.
> Bottom line, Rob; you think FaAA/ABA is important to your side of the
> debate, then YOU get off your butt and document it like DVP has done
> with the 1986 LWT docudrama, mate.
Just did mate. Only liars don't give the full side of the story.
> Sitting around whining and sniping from the sidelines just looks
> pathetic, robcap.
Coming from you this is a real joke. You are way on the sidelines -
Australia! Don't you have any local news to lie about?
> Concerned Regards,
Don't you mean full of crap?
> > (Roger McCarthy's Affadavit)- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
On Aug 26, 1:31 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 24, 1:29 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Why should he? It's not incumbent on him to do so. If you think that
> > the FaAA/ABA trial of 1992 is so important then why don't YOU put in
> > the same hours and patience documenting it that DVP has put into *Lee
> > Harvey Oswald: On Trial*?
>
> Just did mate.
>
Did not. Didn't even explain what you meant by *FaAA*. Failed to
produce a single word of testimony from the trial you think so
important. Unlike DVP.
> > He's been doing that for a number of years now. And when *Reclaiming
> > History* was published his hard work and faith was rewarded, since
> > that self same *LHO: On Trial* was cited as the spark for Bugliosi's
> > landmark work.
>
> Why did they hold the trial in London mate? His "docu-drama" proves
> nothing.
>
Who cares, buddy? Does the location matter for a mock trial
proceeding? Did your *FaAA/ABA* trial use all genuine witnesses? A
sitting Texas judge? A jury drawn from the official Texas court rolls?
Genuine counsel in the form of Bugliosi and Gerry Spence? We wouldn't
know, you've documented it so poorly. Again, quite unlike DVP.
> > Bottom line, Rob; you think FaAA/ABA is important to your side of the
> > debate, then YOU get off your butt and document it like DVP has done
> > with the 1986 LWT docudrama, mate.
>
> Just did mate. Only liars don't give the full side of the story.
>
LOL! Your documentation of FaAA/ABA was pitiful, buddy. looks like you
just called yourself a liar, too.
> > Sitting around whining and sniping from the sidelines just looks
> > pathetic, robcap.
>
> Coming from you this is a real joke. You are way on the sidelines -
> Australia! Don't you have any local news to lie about?
>
LOL! Say, weren't you quoting Bertrand Russell just the other day?
That dead guy from the UK? I bet even I, in Australia, know where to
lay hands on at least a partial transcript of the ABA trial you cite.
Unlike you, buddy.
> > Concerned Regards,
>
> Don't you mean full of crap?
>
LOL! The idea that you have documented FaAA/ABA to anywhere near the
degree that DVP has documented On Trial:LHO is certainly crap, Rob ol'
buddy.
Alarmed Regards,
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
muc...@gmail.com
robcap...@netscape.com
> MIDDLE POST
>
> On Aug 26, 1:31 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 24, 1:29 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > TOP POST
>
> > > Why should he? It's not incumbent on him to do so. If you think that
> > > the FaAA/ABA trial of 1992 is so important then why don't YOU put in
> > > the same hours and patience documenting it that DVP has put into *Lee
> > > Harvey Oswald: On Trial*?
>
> > Just did mate.
>
> Did not. Didn't even explain what you meant by *FaAA*. Failed to
> produce a single word of testimony from the trial you think so
> important. Unlike DVP.
LOL!!!! What Dave is refering to is NOT a "trial", it was a
TELEVISION DOCU-DRAMA that was fixed from the get go. Anyone can
Google "FaAA" and Roger McCarthy for the details.
> > > He's been doing that for a number of years now. And when *Reclaiming
> > > History* was published his hard work and faith was rewarded, since
> > > that self same *LHO: On Trial* was cited as the spark for Bugliosi's
> > > landmark work.
>
> > Why did they hold the trial in London mate? His "docu-drama" proves
> > nothing.
>
> Who cares, buddy?
People who care in the truth? If the case was such a "slam dunk" why
couldn't they hold it in the U.S.?
>Does the location matter for a mock trial
> proceeding? Did your *FaAA/ABA* trial use all genuine witnesses? A
> sitting Texas judge? A jury drawn from the official Texas court rolls?
> Genuine counsel in the form of Bugliosi and Gerry Spence? We wouldn't
> know, you've documented it so poorly. Again, quite unlike DVP.
And poor Timmy can't do any kind of search on his computer, huh? In
fact, I would say IF you were really familiar with this case you would
have heard of this before.
P.S. Dave's "case" was NOT real, get over it. It was a bought and
paid for T.V. production and the last time I checked NO major Media in
the U.S. ever says anything but LHO did it alone. You wouldn't know
this since you live in Australia.
> > > Bottom line, Rob; you think FaAA/ABA is important to your side of the
> > > debate, then YOU get off your butt and document it like DVP has done
> > > with the 1986 LWT docudrama, mate.
>
> > Just did mate. Only liars don't give the full side of the story.
>
> LOL! Your documentation of FaAA/ABA was pitiful, buddy. looks like you
> just called yourself a liar, too.
I gave the basics, and the truth. There was NO verdict in this case.
It is easily searchable so go to it, if you are lazy that is your
problem. No wonder you believe in the official version as you are too
lazy to check anything for yourself.
> > > Sitting around whining and sniping from the sidelines just looks
> > > pathetic, robcap.
>
> > Coming from you this is a real joke. You are way on the sidelines -
> > Australia! Don't you have any local news to lie about?
>
> LOL! Say, weren't you quoting Bertrand Russell just the other day?
> That dead guy from the UK? I bet even I, in Australia, know where to
> lay hands on at least a partial transcript of the ABA trial you cite.
> Unlike you, buddy.
Good, then you know there was NO verdict. Who cares if I add it since
you have it? You are making a mound out of a molehill because you
know the stuff you support is bull. THANKS for illuminating this for
us.
> > > Concerned Regards,
>
> > Don't you mean full of crap?
>
> LOL! The idea that you have documented FaAA/ABA to anywhere near the
> degree that DVP has documented On Trial:LHO is certainly crap, Rob ol'
> buddy.
Who said I was going to document it fully? Where did I claim I was
going to do this mate? Why do you think most of us give any credence
to a T.V. production? I was simply stating it is funny Dave NEVER
mentions this trial, and it was certainly more of a trial than the
T.V. show he is always refering to. Nice attempt at trying to
obfuscate the real issue, Dave's beloved "trial" WAS REALLY A T.V.
SHOW!!
> Alarmed Regards,
What a joker this guy is. Alarmed regards. He never mentions the
case in most posts and he is alarmed. Go figure.
tims...@gmail.com
On Aug 27, 1:22 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 26, 5:33 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > MIDDLE POST
>
> > On Aug 26, 1:31 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 24, 1:29 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > TOP POST
>
> > > > Why should he? It's not incumbent on him to do so. If you think that
> > > > the FaAA/ABA trial of 1992 is so important then why don't YOU put in
> > > > the same hours and patience documenting it that DVP has put into *Lee
> > > > Harvey Oswald: On Trial*?
>
> > > Just did mate.
>
> > Did not. Didn't even explain what you meant by *FaAA*. Failed to
> > produce a single word of testimony from the trial you think so
> > important. Unlike DVP.
>
> LOL!!!! What Dave is refering to is NOT a "trial", it was a
> TELEVISION DOCU-DRAMA that was fixed from the get go. Anyone can
> Google "FaAA" and Roger McCarthy for the details.
>
Where's your proof it was *fixed from the get go*? It was simply a
dry, mock trial proceeding held in front of TV cameras. There is no
acting, there is no script.
> > > > He's been doing that for a number of years now. And when *Reclaiming
> > > > History* was published his hard work and faith was rewarded, since
> > > > that self same *LHO: On Trial* was cited as the spark for Bugliosi's
> > > > landmark work.
>
> > > Why did they hold the trial in London mate? His "docu-drama" proves
> > > nothing.
>
> > Who cares, buddy?
>
> People who care in the truth? If the case was such a "slam dunk" why
> couldn't they hold it in the U.S.?
>
People who care in the truth? What are you trying to say here? It was
held in London, presumably, because LWT were putting up the money to
make it. LWT stands for London Weekend Television, Rob. I won't bother
to ask whether you knew that or not.
> >Does the location matter for a mock trial
> > proceeding? Did your *FaAA/ABA* trial use all genuine witnesses? A
> > sitting Texas judge? A jury drawn from the official Texas court rolls?
> > Genuine counsel in the form of Bugliosi and Gerry Spence? We wouldn't
> > know, you've documented it so poorly. Again, quite unlike DVP.
>
> And poor Timmy can't do any kind of search on his computer, huh? In
> fact, I would say IF you were really familiar with this case you would
> have heard of this before.
>
Transalation: I, Rob Caprio, have raised the ABA as important but I
can't be bothered putting up any specifics so I guess it really wasn't
all that important to me, Rob Caprio, in the first place.
> P.S. Dave's "case" was NOT real, get over it. It was a bought and
> paid for T.V. production and the last time I checked NO major Media in
> the U.S. ever says anything but LHO did it alone. You wouldn't know
> this since you live in Australia.
>
When did I say it was real? A mock trial can never be real. It is
possible, however, to go to elaborate lengths to MAKE it as real as
possible. LWT certainly took those steps, spending over a million
pounds at the time. As LWT is a British media organisation, I don't
think it matters whether you live in America or Australia in
considering their views. I don't think they cared what the verdict
would be. Exoneration of Oswald and proof that it wasn't him would
probably have brought them far more publicity than the guilty verdict
that was actually reached in the proceeding.
> > > > Bottom line, Rob; you think FaAA/ABA is important to your side of the
> > > > debate, then YOU get off your butt and document it like DVP has done
> > > > with the 1986 LWT docudrama, mate.
>
> > > Just did mate. Only liars don't give the full side of the story.
>
> > LOL! Your documentation of FaAA/ABA was pitiful, buddy. looks like you
> > just called yourself a liar, too.
>
> I gave the basics, and the truth. There was NO verdict in this case.
> It is easily searchable so go to it, if you are lazy that is your
> problem. No wonder you believe in the official version as you are too
> lazy to check anything for yourself.
>
Well at least I don't posit absurd scenarios like Richard Nixon had a
hand in it, Rob. :-)
> > > > Sitting around whining and sniping from the sidelines just looks
> > > > pathetic, robcap.
>
> > > Coming from you this is a real joke. You are way on the sidelines -
> > > Australia! Don't you have any local news to lie about?
>
> > LOL! Say, weren't you quoting Bertrand Russell just the other day?
> > That dead guy from the UK? I bet even I, in Australia, know where to
> > lay hands on at least a partial transcript of the ABA trial you cite.
> > Unlike you, buddy.
>
No reply on Bertrand Russell, Rob?
> Good, then you know there was NO verdict. Who cares if I add it since
> you have it? You are making a mound out of a molehill because you
> know the stuff you support is bull. THANKS for illuminating this for
> us.
>
I said I had a partial transcript. Maybe the verdict isn't included in
the part I have. You seem to make a habit of jumping to ill informed
conclusions, Rob. That must be why your theories about the JFK
assassination are so wide of the mark.
> > > > Concerned Regards,
>
> > > Don't you mean full of crap?
>
> > LOL! The idea that you have documented FaAA/ABA to anywhere near the
> > degree that DVP has documented On Trial:LHO is certainly crap, Rob ol'
> > buddy.
>
> Who said I was going to document it fully? Where did I claim I was
> going to do this mate? Why do you think most of us give any credence
> to a T.V. production? I was simply stating it is funny Dave NEVER
> mentions this trial, and it was certainly more of a trial than the
> T.V. show he is always refering to. Nice attempt at trying to
> obfuscate the real issue, Dave's beloved "trial" WAS REALLY A T.V.
> SHOW!!
>
You've probably never sat down and watched it all the way through. As
I said above, it is simply a mock trial proceeding at which TV cameras
are present. Seems just as valid as the proceeding you are endorsing,
though you have provided little detail to support your argument.
Of course, all the witnesses were genuine in *On Trial: LHO*, probably
quite unlike the procedure you think is so important, the judge and
court staff were all real, the jurors were all drawn from official
Texas court rolls, including the two alternates and counsel for both
sides were real. They tested the evidence and your mate, Oswald, came
up way short of the mark.
> > Alarmed Regards,
>
> What a joker this guy is. Alarmed regards. He never mentions the
> case in most posts and he is alarmed. Go figure.
>
LOL! Rob, you just make stuff up. You appear to lack credibility even
within the CT crowd.
Sympathetic Regards,
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the tip. I didn't know it was coming out on DVD. The cover
looks great! Maybe the fact that it runs 330 minutes means that the
rest of the material they filmed is lost to history. It would be a
shame if that was the case. Maybe DVP knows the story?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e46316b513d2504c
>>> "Hi Mark, Thanks for the tip. I didn't know it was coming out on DVD." <<<
Holy smoke! This is excellent news!
I, too, had no clue that "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" was due for a
DVD release on October 28, 2008. Fabulous news indeed. I've been
wanting that program on Digital Disc for years. And MPI usually puts
out good-quality DVDs too.
I don't know how I missed Mark's post from four days ago regarding
this DVD. I skipped right past it for some reason. Thanks for the
bump, Tim.
The 2-Disc "ON TRIAL" set can be pre-ordered at Amazon for only $21.99
(as of this moment on 8/30/08). It's definitely worth that reasonable
price, to be sure....for 5.5 hours of "trial" footage with Bugliosi
and Spence:
>>> "The cover looks great!" <<<
Indeed. A touched-up photo of Lee Oswald's mug shot, with a suit and a
tie added in (appropriate, since he'd be dressed up in the courtroom
for his "trial"):
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hfyb25i1L._SS500_.jpg
>>> "Maybe the fact that it runs 330 minutes means that the rest of the material they filmed is lost to history. It would be a shame if that was the case. Maybe DVP knows the story?" <<<
Well, Tim, there were two different "aired" versions of "On Trial:
LHO" that were broadcast over the years on American cable-TV networks
-- Showtime in 1986 for the original first-run broadcast, with Edwin
Newman hosting; and, I think, A&E reran it in 1988, with Geraldo
Rivera serving as host for the program, and he interviewed both
Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence, with Spence admitting that he
didn't think there was any conspiracy involved in Kennedy's death at
all.
I might be wrong on the network that aired "On Trial" in 1988, though.
It could have been a different network. But, anyway, Geraldo
definitely was the "moderator" or "host" of the rerun airing, because
I've seen portions of that broadcast too.
The '86 and '88 versions were a little bit different too...in the
sense that a different "cut" of "On Trial" was used for each of those
airings. I can confirm this because the 1986 Showtime version that I
have on VHS tape doesn't contain a few snippets of Bugliosi's Final
Summation that DID appear in the '88 "Geraldo" variant.
However, both the '86 and '88 aired versions lasted 5.5 hours (or
right about that amount of time), which means that almost 75% of the
whole trial that was apparently filmed by LWT in London in July of '86
was edited out of the final aired versions and left on the cutting-
room floor.
As Bugliosi confirms in his 2007 book "Reclaiming History", the entire
trial was 21 hours in length (and Vince has said in interviews that
the trial was originally slated to take up 28 hours of time, but it
ended up being 21 hours). But only 5.5 hours of the trial ended up on
living-room TV screens.
I'd love to see the whole trial, uncut. That would be very
interesting.
On a related (and coincidental) note, I was told by Vince Bugliosi's
secretary, Rosemary Newton, just last month (on July 3, 2008) that all
21 hours of video footage from the '86 mock trial do still exist.
Vince told Rosemary to tell me to contact Jack Duffy in Fort Worth,
Texas, if I wanted to locate the tapes containing all 21 hours of the
trial. (I had previously written Rosemary an e-mail asking if she or
Vince knew where I could possibly find a copy of the complete 21-hour
version of the trial.)
Some of the excised portions of the trial do, however, come to light,
via the written word, in Mr. Bugliosi's JFK book....such as some of
the testimony of one witness that I had no idea had even testified in
'86 at the London trial -- Jack Tatum. All of Tatum's testimony hit
the cutting-room floor, unfortunately.
So, Tim, I think the "330 minutes" (5.5 hours exactly) that we'll see
in the MPI DVD version of "On Trial" should be the "whole" thing, as
aired in 1986. (I doubt any of the 1988 version will be included on
the DVD, simply because the packaging notes for the DVD specifically
mention "Showtime", and the original first-run version would seem the
likely choice to use for a DVD release.)
Anyway, I'm looking forward to replacing my subpar, multi-generation
copy of "ON TRIAL" in October when the MPI DVD version arrives at my
door.
Addendum:
For a 3-hour mini-version of the trial (via selected audio and video
clips), check out my "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" YouTube series that
I recently put together:
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e46316b513d2504c
>
> >>> "Hi Mark, Thanks for the tip. I didn't know it was coming out on DVD." <<<
>
> Holy smoke! This is excellent news!
>
> I, too, had no clue that "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" was due for a
> DVD release on October 28, 2008. Fabulous news indeed. I've been
> wanting that program on Digital Disc for years. And MPI usually puts
> out good-quality DVDs too.
they do? Aren't they the folks who screwed up the Zapruder DVD? Even
Gary mack will attest to that..... you're a fool, son! Keep up the
good work!
tims...@gmail.com
Hi DVP,
Yes, I only noticed that link from Mark yesterday too. He makes a
habit of linking to very useful stuff, so I should have noticed it
earlier. My bad.
That is FANTASTIC news that all 21 hours of the original trial are
still around. Hopefully it will see the light of day sometime soon. I
would be VERY interested in being kept across your progress about
learning more about it/obtaining a copy, if you are able to share that
information.
Thanks for the insights re the broadcasts in the States in 1986 and
1988. The copy I have would approximate to the Showtime version, and
is probably the same version as broadcast in the UK, the LWT version,
as Australia at that time tended to get more UK than US TV content in
a lot of things. What I'm trying to say is if there was a UK version
and a US version of the same show, we would get the UK version,
generally. :-)
The DVD release could be a stepping stone to the release of some of
the other material, with luck. Certainly the DVD format is going to
lend itself far more easily to viewing of this show, if all the
witness testimonies are accessible individually via the menu.
I appreciate the insights you've provided on this great show and your
website documenting it is excellent! I'm still working my way through
Bugliosi's massive tome and it is good to be able to go back and
review the vision from time to time. BTW, DVP, he keeps mentioning the
trial transcript in his book. Are you able to ask some questions about
that, perhaps? It would be great if you could.
KUTGW, DVP! I enjoy reading your posts, particularly ones about the
great show, *On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald*!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
David Von Pein
>>> "[VB] keeps mentioning the trial transcript in his book. Are you able to ask some questions about that, perhaps?" <<<
I've thought about asking him (through Rosemary, his secretary, who
has been very nice to me) whether I could acquire an actual copy of
the trial transcript....but I haven't gotten around to asking about
that yet. I know how busy Vince is with his Bush book promotion at the
present time.
But I'd love to acquire a copy of the "On Trial" transcript. That
would keep me busy for quite a while, because the transcript is quite
long, per some of the references to the high page numbers for it in
VB's RH book.
>>> "KUTGW, DVP! I enjoy reading your posts, particularly ones about the great show, *On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald*!" <<<
Thanks, Tim. I appreciate it.
I'm currently working on writing my Amazon.com review for the "On
Trial" DVD. (I can write most of it now, since I know the contents of
the whole 5.5-hour program; but I won't submit the review until after
I've seen the DVD version.)
Also......
I spoke of Rosemary [Newton] up above. I had an e-mail from her just
today. I'll share it with you below (I don't think she'd mind). It was
in regards to this "On Trial" DVD subject, in fact. I wrote her to
give her (and Vince) a heads-up on the DVD coming in October, just in
case they were unaware of it. And she was unaware of it. She was quite
surprised at the news. Here's her full reply:
=======================
Subj: LHO trial
Date: 8/31/2008 1:38:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: [Rosemary Newton]
To: [DVP]
Hi Dave,
Hope all is well with you. Thank you so much for the great news.
I did not know this was being released on DVD. Since Vince's latest
book came out in May, work has been focused on his latest book, which
as you no doubt know has created a storm (mostly pro) on the internet.
Between his interviews and traveling, our communication these days is
mostly faxing and telephoning regarding "The Prosecution of George
Bush." I'm sure you saw him before the Judiciary Committee in July. If
you didn't, pull it up on the internet. Getting back to the DVD coming
out in October, I'll be sure to get my copy. I also sent Vince a copy
of your fax along with an Amazon order page for "On Trial: Lee Harvey
Oswald".
Again, Dave, thanks. It's always a pleasure to hear from you.
Regards, Rosemary"
=========================
Bud
TOP POST POSTED ON TOP OF A TOP POST:
I`ve been following this discussion, and a few things occurred to
me I want to interject, and there really isn`t a good place to do so,
so I plopping them here. First off, kudos all around for making the
information available. I`ve never seen this show, and I`ll be sure to
get it, but what occurred to me is that the CT seem hostile to this
show. You`d think that the way they praise witnesses, they`d want as
much information as they could get their hands on straight from the
horses mouth, so to speak. It seems the kooks prefer their information
from the witnesses taken out of context and spun beyond recognition,
preferably via some conspiracy author like Lane. Seems LN are the ones
that want everything the witness had to say, to read in context, while
kooks prefer to cherry pick a sentence fragment out of context. Just
now, Gil produced a passage of Markham`s testimony when the waitress,
who probably never had an experience like this in her life, was
obviously confused, and this confused portion is what he produced and
wanted to focus on. Typical of the kook approach when it comes to
witnesses. The other thing I wanted to mention was kooks probably hate
this program because it shows how this crime was likely to play out in
a court setting. The kooks have this idea that in a courtroom,
everything would go their way, with all the evidence they don`t like
thrown out, ect, when in fact, any smart defense lawyer wouldn`t even
attempt the "killer points" these kooks feel would lead to Oswald`s
exoneration. Well, that was all I wanted to air out, I`m enjoying the
discussion, don`t mind me, please continue, I`m back to lurking.
David Von Pein
Thanks for the interjection, Bud. Your input is always a breath of
fresh air. Always.
You'll enjoy the mock trial for sure....especially the parts with Ruth
Paine, Cyril Wecht, and Tom "I Didn't Dare Go In The Homicide Office
Because I Didn't Have A White Hat" Tilson. ;)
David Von Pein
DVD Addendum.....
The "On Trial" DVD can also be purchased at DeepDiscount.com, for only
$18.55 (as of this writing). Free shipping too. Can't beat this with a
stick (or a Carcano):
muc...@gmail.com
What a excellent thread! Just one question: how do those of us living
outside N America manage (without breaking too many laws) to get our
hands on Region 1 releases like this one? Andy W? eBay?
-Mark
PS: In Denmark, the "On Trial" show aired in three segments on
20-21-22 Nov 86, but I've never owned a copy, so DVP's efforts have
been very helpful. The following (8 Dec 86) EOC review by Paul Hoch is
also required reading:
tims...@gmail.com
Hi DVP,
That is EXCELLENT news that you were able to alert VB's office to the
pending release of the *On Trial* DVD! Thanks for sharing the
communication from his secretary with those of us interested on the
newsgroup, too!
I, too, would love to know more about the transcript document, so I
hope you get the opportunity to make some enquiries, perhaps at a less
busy time for his office.
In the meantime, I will keep using the transcripts that you yourself
have made and posted links to. Thanks again for sharing the
information you have on *On Trial* and I would REALLY be interested in
hearing your progress in locating the entire 21 hours of film and/or
the transcript and wish you the best of luck in both endeavours.
KUTGW, DVP! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Bud,
You raise some really good points here. Glad you've joined the
discussion!
I believe you are right in stating that the CT are hostile to this
show. Most of it is simply dry evidence/testimony presented in a
courtroom setting and featuring cross examination of ACTUAL witnesses,
while a camera runs.
The reason they don't like it is that Bugliosi spent literally
HUNDREDS of hours preparing his prosecution case, a fact that DVP made
me aware of awhile back, and asked a lot of VERY pertinent questions.
The questions he asked were the very ones that CTers, since the WC,
had been posing for years. Like asking Frazier if the package Oswald
carried that day could have been longer than the description CTers so
desperately cling to. Like asking Hosty about the torn up note and the
circumstances behind it. Like asking Ted Callaway if Oswald was the
man he saw running from the scene of the Tippit murder, holding a
pistol in the air.
The answers are given, the CTers simply didn't like the answers. If
the LWT show had found Oswald innocent, it would be a very popular
show, like TMWKK, in my view.
Your second point about the courtroom scenario is also well made. This
was an open and shut case and Bugliosi makes it so, with a prosecution
case that swiftly builds a compelling pattern of guilty conduct by
Oswald.
If you have not seen this show before, you are in for a real treat
when it comes out on DVD!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > >www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=87725BDBE6861725- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Mark,
That rundown of the show, written by Paul Hoch, is a very worthwhile
read for anyone interested in *On Trial:LHO*. Hoch wrote that when he
was still a conspiracy theorist, though these days he believes that
Oswald did the shooting.
He is a really smart fellow and a nice guy. We have swapped a few
emails over the years and is one of the most astute people in
assassination research, in my view.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
muc...@gmail.com
Hi Tim,
> That rundown of the show, written by Paul Hoch, is a very worthwhile
> read for anyone interested in *On Trial:LHO*. Hoch wrote that when he
> was still a conspiracy theorist, though these days he believes that
> Oswald did the shooting.
Not particularly surprising, but I didn't actually *know* that he had
made a full Palamara.
> He is a really smart fellow and a nice guy. We have swapped a few
> emails over the years and is one of the most astute people in
> assassination research, in my view.
I couldn't agree more. I've always had a tremendous amount of respect
for Hoch. His newsletters were exceptionally well written, full of
insights and wit, and are still a joy to read. Unfortunately, my
interest in the case dropped in the early 90's (when I began to
realize how weak the case for conspiracy really was) and I allowed my
newsletter subscriptions to expire, thereby missing out on the last
couple of issues. If you have them, Tim, I'd be very interested indeed
in copies/scans of EOC issues from 1993 or later!!
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
-Mark :-)
David Von Pein
>>> "I didn't actually *know* that he had made a full Palamara." <<<
Palamara hasn't even made a full "full Palamara" (by his own
admission):
"I'll tell you this: a good many fellow researchers are doing
their very best to "UNconvince" me of my regard for Bugliosi's
book...and it is starting to have an effect. As I alluded to before,
the back-of-the-head witnesses and the Sylvia Odio incident still
trouble me." -- Vince Palamara; 06/30/2008
More:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ad16a360568d72f0