Discussing The Mindset Of Conspiracy Theorists

[David G. Healy]

My guess would be that the stuff about Bugliosi getting a "$1-million advance" (as some CTers have suggested) is blown up way out of proportion.

...

If you DON'T know what are YOU defending Bugliosi for? Just curious.

[William Kelly]

My guess would be that the stuff about Bugliosi getting a "$1-million advance" (as some CTers have suggested) is blown up way out of proportion. And given Lifton's totally-shot-to-hell credibility regarding this "Reclaiming History" matter, why on Earth would anyone believe anything he says about it?

I suppose Rosemary Newton, Bugliosi's secretary, is a rotten xxxx and cover-up artist too, eh, when she said this in 2007?:

"In response to David Lifton's outrageous, malicious and contemptible lie regarding Vincent Bugliosi's book...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)...I say, unequivocally, that NO section of Mr. Bugliosi's book was ghostwritten." -- Rosemary Newton; July 2007

How can you deny it, if Bugliosi ACKNOWLEDGES the contributions of his ghost writers in the section I quote?

And I still await any response at all on the background of Mr. Starling Lawrence and where the money came from that he gave to Bugliosi.

And Rosemary Newton doesn't have to be rotten xxxx and cover-up artist too, just a loyal secretary whose income was derived from Mr. Lawrence's money too.

BK

JFKcountercoup

Edited February 28, 2011 by William Kelly

[David Von Pein]

How can you deny it, if Bugliosi ACKNOWLEDGES the contributions of his ghost writers in the section I quote?

If Myers is ACKNOWLEDGED as a co-writer of the book, then he is not a "ghostwriter". Simple as that. (And I've quoted that exact same excerpt from Page 1515 of "RH" myself, to illustrate the silly point of referring to Dale K. Myers as a "ghostwriter".)

And my guess is that David Lifton doesn't have a clue as to the number of pages that Myers HELPED Bugliosi write in "Reclaiming History". Lifton is merely picking numbers out of a hat (i.e., "hundreds and hundreds"). And the same goes for Fred Haines' writing contribution (which Bugliosi says in the book was a "smaller" writing effort when compared to Myers').

Edited March 1, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

How can you deny it, if Bugliosi ACKNOWLEDGES the contributions of his ghost writers in the section I quote?

If Myers is ACKNOWLEDGED as a co-writer of the book, then he is not a "ghostwriter". Simple as that. (And I've quoted that exact same excerpt from Page 1515 of "RH" myself, to illustrate the silly point of referring to Dale K. Myers as a "ghostwriter".)

And my guess is that David Lifton doesn't have a clue as to the number of pages that Myers HELPED Bugliosi write in "Reclaiming History". Lifton is merely picking numbers out of a hat (i.e., "hundreds and hundreds"). And the same goes for Fred Haines' writing contribution (which Bugliosi says in the book was a "smaller" writing effort when compared to Myers').

But David, Bugliosi has also claimed he wrote every word and double-checked every footnote etc... Are you open-minded to the possibility he was exaggerating, and that SOME portion of the book--let's say 300 pages--was largely written by others?

If not, then what did Myers do exactly? Is he responsible for Bugliosi first claiming the second shot was at 224, and then changing his mind, or not?

Edited March 1, 2011 by Pat Speer

[William Kelly]

How can you deny it, if Bugliosi ACKNOWLEDGES the contributions of his ghost writers in the section I quote?

If Myers is ACKNOWLEDGED as a co-writer of the book, then he is not a "ghostwriter". Simple as that. (And I've quoted that exact same excerpt from Page 1515 of "RH" myself, to illustrate the silly point of referring to Dale K. Myers as a "ghostwriter".)

And my guess is that David Lifton doesn't have a clue as to the number of pages that Myers HELPED Bugliosi write in "Reclaiming History". Lifton is merely picking numbers out of a hat (i.e., "hundreds and hundreds"). And the same goes for Fred Haines' writing contribution (which Bugliosi says in the book was a "smaller" writing effort when compared to Myers').

So two guys are acknowledge being heavy literary contributors to a book, and are paid very well for their words, but aren't listed as co-authors of the book, and you don't want to call them "ghostwriters?"

Call them whatever you want, but we know they are hacks, and pretty good hacks at that.

Tannenbaum, the former NYC cop and assist. to HSCA chief counsel Richard Sprague, before he got sacked, wrote a number of popular, best-selling novels based on cases he worked on, at first letting a friend do most of the writing, and taking all of the credit, and most of the money. When the ghostwriter wanted either more money or more credit, Tannenbaum thought he'd do the writing himself, or got somebody else to do it, and it backfired, because all of the fans he had built up reading his early stuff were pretty much anticipating the same style, flow and narrative.

Same goes with Bugliosi. I don't know if he wrote the Manson murder book all by himself - which was a best-seller, but I do know that DAs, Chief Counsels and Prosecutors don't do the investigative leg work on most cases, though they do like to put on a show in court, so I don't believe that Bugliosi wrote much of anything all by himself, any more than Oswald killed anybody by hisself.

I do know Bugliosi's NYC literary agent, Peter Miller, a Jersey Shore guy, who does have a stable of ghost writers who he pays to read and polish up the work of his clients, and next time I see Peter on the Margate beach I'll ask him about the extent of the Bug's literary talents. And I'll also try to get the story on the Bugliosi-HBO-Hanks-Paxon deal.

Peter's dad lead the house band at Skinny D'Amato's 500 Club in Atlantic City.

JFKcountercoup: Skinny D'Amato at his 500 Club Atlantic City

BK

[Len Colby]

... in 1990 there were 303 hits for the term in Google News and 655 in 1993 which suggests use of the term increased 2.16x,

Discussion of the media’s use of the term “conspiracy theory” following JFK got me wondering about hit movies being above to focus attention on certain subjects. I thought about Schindler’s List but did not find a major increase in use of the word ‘Holocaust’ and then remembered Rain Man. A Google News search for ‘autism’ turns up 234 hits for 1987, the year before its release and 608 for 1990. That come out to a 2.6X increase, bigger than the 2.16X increase for CT after JFK, I guess Jim will argue that was a CIA plot as well.

Jim - I'm still waiting for the link to the Matthew's column or barring that the title and/or date of publication.

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm still waiting for the link to the Matthew's column or barring that the title and/or date of publication.

San Francisco Examiner, December 7, 1995.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1995/12/07/EDITORIAL500.dtl

"Nixon" was based on a dubious quote

OLIVER STONE'S "Nixon," a movie due in theaters for the holidays, ties the Watergate coverup to the death of John F. Kennedy.

In an attempt to escape blame for the 1972 break-in, the movie tells us, Richard Nixon sought refuge in the CIA's coverup of the JFK assassination.

Here's how the Stone scenario unfolds:

* Beginning in the last months of the Eisenhower administration, the CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro.

* The CIA covered up the anti-Castro campaign, fearing that it may have triggered JFK's death in November 1963.

* Richard Nixon tried using the CIA coverup to hide his own Watergate-related misdeeds. He ordered Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman to tell the CIA that a further probe of the Democratic National Committee break-in would "open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing."

And "Bay of Pigs" was Nixon's code for the Kennedy killing.

Stone points to an extraordinary source for his "Nixon" scenario. In an introduction to the Disney-published script, his producers drew the connection between Dallas and Watergate from something Haldeman, was supposed to have written about Nixon's coverup orders to him on June 23, 1972:

"It seems that in all those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination."

The introduction to the "Nixon" script states, "These are not Oliver Stone's words. They are H.R. Haldeman's."

The problem is that Haldeman denied writing those words. While they appeared in his 1978 book, "The Ends of Power," Haldeman attributed them to his collaborator, Joseph DiMona.

Haldeman was clear on this point - to the end.

I interviewed him at his Santa Barbara home in October 1993, just a month before he died of stomach cancer. Though I had never met him before and came from the opposite political background, my host was incredibly generous, sitting with me for an enormous amount of time discussing Waterate and the coverup, certainly not his favorite topics.

Like Stone and his producers, I was particularly interested in the theory advanced in "The Ends of Power" that Nixon's coverup was actually an attempt to hide Watergate behind the CIA's bodyguard of lies surrounding the Castro assassination attempts.

Haldeman disappointed me. When I asked about the theory advanced in the 1978 book that "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" was Nixon code for something else, Haldeman cut me off cold.

"That's what I have to disclaim," he said. "That's Joe DiMona's theory of what went on."

It was, as I said, a disappointing answer. Like Stone's producers, I had been intrigued by the theory advanced in

"The Ends of Power."

Intriguing or not, it was not Haldeman's theory.

I asked him what he thought Nixon did mean by "the whole Bay of Pigs" in that June 23 conversation.

"I don't have any idea," he said. "That was a mystery to me."

It must have remained so.

When I visited him, Haldeman was using the little time he had left to ready his rich, painstaking diary of the Nixon presidency. That diary, which historians will value for generations, is the man's true memoir and his great contribution to our understanding of the period.

Matthews didn't bother to check with Joseph DiMona, but thankfully Dr. Gary Aguilar did.

alt.conspiracy.jfk, May 13, 2003, post by Gary Aguilar:

I demolished this Matthews myth when it was first published in my

local paper. How? By calling Haldeman's co-author, Joe DiMona, on the

phone myself. He was so incensed at what Matthews had written, he

wrote a letter to the SF Examiner in response. Did they publish it?

No, but that doesn't mean that Matthews was right.

DiMona said that Haldeman was an exceedingly fastidious man, that he

went through all five, prepub revisions of his book with a fine tooth

comb. The notion that by "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" Helms

interpreted it to be about the Kennedy assassination would never in a

million years have ever occurred to DiMona. Even if it had, the

punctilious Haldeman would have excised it in one of his careful

reviews if he'd not wanted it in his book. But DiMona said it was

Haldeman's idea, not DiMona's.

DiMona offered a commonsense explanation for Haldeman's backing away

from this part of the book. It seems that backing away from

embarrassing parts of the book was Haldeman's common practice, DiMona

told me. Haldeman, it turns out, was shunned by Nixonites after his

book was published. In order to ingratiate himself with Nixonites

furious with him at what he'd written, Haldeman had a bad habit of

passing off anything offensive onto DiMona.

I don't just have this from DiMona by memory, DiMona sent me a fax

[he's since died], rewriting a letter to the Op-ed page I'd submitted.

In his letter he laid this explanation out in full.

So, who are we to believe? I know that McAdams believes a man known

for lying, Haldeman. I'm more sympathetic to a man not known for

lying, Joe DiMona.

Perhaps we can clear this up, if McAdams is game, by asking DiMona's

son. [bet McAdams didn't know DiMona had a son!]

Gary

Chris Matthews didn't get the NBC-associated "Hardball" gig until 1997.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/thepressandjournalist1/p/CMatthews.htm

Edited March 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Hardball began in 1994

Factually incorrect. "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted on CNBC in 1997.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414740/

[Tony Frank]

According to the Gallup Organization, 75 percent of the American people believe that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was the result of a conspiracy. Gallup polls have found that the 75 percent figure has remained constant over the past thirty years.

In an interview for the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS, Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, said, “The American public thinks it was a conspiracy. Three-quarters of Americans in poll after poll, year after year, continue to tell us that they do not believe that one man, Lee Harvey Oswald, did it alone. He was part of a conspiracy.”

LNers are out numbered 3 to 1.

[David Josephs]

According to the Gallup Organization, 75 percent of the American people believe that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was the result of a conspiracy. Gallup polls have found that the 75 percent figure has remained constant over the past thirty years.

In an interview for the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS, Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, said, “The American public thinks it was a conspiracy. Three-quarters of Americans in poll after poll, year after year, continue to tell us that they do not believe that one man, Lee Harvey Oswald, did it alone. He was part of a conspiracy.”

LNers are out numbered 3 to 1.

Add in the rest of the world and it's more like 10:1.....

We're the only people who still tries to believe that political assassination does not exist in this country... while the rest of the world knows better.... much better.

[Greg Burnham]

... I mean if the discoveries of the ARRB

ever were adequately presented to a national audience, it would be almost like they saw the Zapruder film for the first time.

Well, that would be very disappointing indeed! The actual showing of the Zapruder Film by Geraldo Rivera in 1975(?) yielded little, if anything, of merit

to this cause. The findings of the HSCA were barely better than the findings of the WC. The Zapruder Film has, ironically, provided very little "traction"

for us. Rather, it was used as a basis for the conclusions reached by the Official Lone Nutters' (The Warren Commission) Theory.

Now, THAT is whacko...

But, I do get your point, Jim.

[William Kelly]

... I mean if the discoveries of the ARRB

ever were adequately presented to a national audience, it would be almost like they saw the Zapruder film for the first time.

Well, that would be very disappointing indeed! The actual showing of the Zapruder Film by Geraldo Rivera in 1975(?) yielded little, if anything, of merit

to this cause. The findings of the HSCA were barely better than the findings of the WC. The Zapruder Film has, ironically, provided very little "traction"

for us. Rather, it was used as a basis for the conclusions reached by the Official Lone Nutters' (The Warren Commission) Theory.

Now, THAT is whacko...

But, I do get your point, Jim.

The Z-film sparked the Congressional funding and approval of the HSCA.

Congressional Oversight hearings are the proper, legal, national venue for review and analysis of the work of the Assassination Records Review Board, hearings that is open to the public, viewed live by a national tv and radio audience over CSPAN and archived and transcribed on the internet.

Thank you gentlemen for signing the petition requesting such oversight.

JFK Act Oversight Hearings Petition

If a few hundred people will sign the petition before Sunshine Week - Mid-March - this petition will be presented to the Oversight Committee and Information Policy Subcommittee chairman and a drive will be initiated to fax the committee office requesting notification when such a hearing will be scheduled.

If that doesn't work, we will take out full page ads in the Congressional Weekly and possibly Washington Post/New York Times posting the petition request and background information.

This campaign, to be successful, only needs a few hundred participants, and is doable.

Thanks to all who assist in this worthy cause,

Bill Kelly

JFKcountercoup: JFK Act Oversight Petition

Edited March 2, 2011 by William Kelly

[David Lifton]

DAVID LIFTON SAID:

Oh pleez...I'm really sick and tired of seeing Dale Myers quoted "in defense of" Vincent Bugliosi. Dale Myers was a paid ghost writer for Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History." Hundreds and hundreds of pages were written/rewritten by Myers.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have a very strong feeling that Mr. David S. Lifton doesn't know what the hell he's babbling about here.

Vincent Bugliosi gave full credit to Dale K. Myers for Dale's writing contributions in the "Acknowledgments" section of "Reclaiming History". So that eliminates Mr. Myers as a "ghostwriter" right there, because ghostwriters are NOT ACKNOWLEDGED AT ALL in the book that they are helping to "ghostwrite".

DVP --you are seriously misinformed. A ghostwriter "is someone who writes something for or with another person on the understanding that the other person will receive sole credit as the author"; a "writer who gives the credit of authorship to someone else."

The existence of signed contracts, payments, and legally enforceable confidentially agreements are the standard apparatus of a ghostwriting arrangement. (And what is said in the "acknowledgments" section is really beside the point.)

Fred Haines, for example, received upwards of $50,000 per year--for years on end--for his paid writing services. Furthermore, his explicit contribution to Reclaiming History is the ENTIRE 260 page biography of Oswald. That's what Haines wrote--laboring over it week after week, month after month. If Haines was NOT a ghostwriter, then RECLAIMING HISTORY would be published with the authorship reading "by" Vincent Bugliosi "with" Fred Haines. But it is not: as published, the sole author is Vincent Bugliosi, yet Haines was paid in the hundreds of thousands of dollars--let me repeat that, in the HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars--over a period spanning almost a decade--for his work. He was paid well, and I'm sure his research was accurate. The fact that Bugliosi mentions him in the acknowledgments sections is a nice gesture but does not mean Haines was not a ghostwriter.

Although the particulars are different, everything I have said above also applies to the arrangement Bugliosi had with Dale Myers--the specific assignment(s), spelled out in a contract; specified amounts to be paid; a legal understanding (established in the later signed contract, the one relating to Reclaiming History, as published) that Myers would receive no credit as the author; the legal requirement that the entire matter would be kept secret (i.e., "confidentiality" etc.).

The fact that Bugliosi says--in effect--"thankyou" to Haines and/or Dale Myers in no way changes the essential fact that both were paid writers whose names were NOT to appear as "authors"; and so, by the standard definition (that their names do not appear as authors, or co-authors), they were paid ghostwriters.

As far as the actual number of pages written by these two individuals, my original statements stand: Fred Haines wrote the entire 260 page biography of Oswald. (FYI: That is conceded by Bugliosi, in his acknowledgements section). And Myers contributed considerably more, in terms of page length.

It should surprise no one that Bugliosi has a history of paying writers for their assistance.

Going back some years to the book "Helter Skelter": In that case, Bugliosi --the Manson prosecutor, who was also a very busy man--availed himself of the services of author Curt Gentry to get the story written, and the title page of the book reads "by" Bugliosi "and Kurt Gentry". But, as I wrote in my original Ghostwriter in the Sky essay, "those of us who knew Curt Gentry know that he wrote Helter Skelter." (Perhaps I should add the word "essentially"--i.e., that he was a primary author of Helter Skelter"; because I would certainly not claim that Bugliosi hired Gentry, paid some money, waved a wand, and out came a book). It was Bugliosi's life experience--as the Manson prosecutor--that had to be turned into words. And it was Gentry's job to do just that. As I said, Bugliosi was a very busy man. That's why he hired Gentry.

As I wrote in Ghostwriters in the Sky (and now quoting. . . ):

In writing Helter Skelter, Vince Bugliosi availed himself of the services of author Curt Gentry, and the title page on the book reads by Bugliosi "and Curt Gentry." Those of us who knew Gentry know of the major effort he made and believe that (as a practical matter) it was he who wrote Helter Skelter. In any event, it was an honorable and overt writing job--overt in the sense that Curt's name was on the cover of the book. But also note: In some editions, however, the authorship is listed as Bugliosi "with" Curt Gentry. (How it reads, normally, would depend on the provisions of the contract.")

Ghosting is done all the time, and it is not necessarily publicized. Publishers are not running a CIA type operation. They can request--even demand--that the writing contribution be kept secret; alternatively it may be acknowledged right on the cover of the book, as in "by Joe Smith, with Eric Jones," or simply co-authorship, as appears to be the case in the first hardcover edition of Helter Skelter.

Let's now turn to "Reclaiming History," which was originally titled "FINAL VERDICT," and was advertised under that title for many years on Amazon.

Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination grew out of the role he played as "prosecutor" (opposite Spence, as defense attorney) in the London Weekly Television "Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald," which was produced by LWT's Mark Redhead, and broadcast about 1985/86 (on SHOWTIME).

In the late 1980s, in the aftermath of the London Weekly Television "Trial of Oswald", and then its broadcast on SHOWTIME, Bugliosi obtained a contract from W W Norton for a hefty sum, reputed to be close to $1M. I cannot vouch for this number. But its what I was told.

Soon thereafter, Bugliosi made an arrangement with a Los Angeles writer--whether he would be called a ghostwriter or just a "writer" or a "writing subcontractor"--is really besides the point. In many ways, it is a "distinction without a difference," (as the lawyers might say.) The writer was Fred Haines, and for years, Haines worked on the sections of Bugliosi's book pertaining to the life of Oswald. . .

Haines received regular payments from W. W. Norton. (Those who save their old Compuserve posts will find Fred Haines on those boards). Those who save check stubs will find payments made by Norton to Fred Haines. The arrangement with Haines --and it went on for many years--was that the book would be "by Bugliosi," but "with Fred Haines." This was similar to the titling of Helter Skelter, which was "by Bugliosi," followed by "and" Curt Gentry (or "with" Curt Gentry, as it appears in the later paperback edition). In other words, similar to the case with Gentry, Haines had a separate contract with the publisher. In his acknowledgements, Bugliosi gives a very generous credit to Fred Haines. He's a fine writer, a good thinker, and a very polite man. Unlike Bugliosi, who engages in personal insults and ridicule, Fred [was a] gentleman. UNQUOTE

And let me add: Had "Final Verdict" been published in that format --"by" Vincent Bugliosi but "with" Fred Haines, then Haines would not, in that instance, be considered a ghostwriter. (Why? Because his name would be on the title page, as a writer).

My essay then went on to describe what happened next--and how it came to pass that Haines left, and Dale Myers came on board. Again, quoting:

In mid-October 1999, Bugliosi turned in a "manuscript" to W W Norton, and I put the words in quotes, because there was a serious problem with it being published in the form it was then in. Its easy to parody the Bulgiosi situation at that point in time: there was "good news" and "bad news". The "good news" was that he turned in 3000 pages, a very outsized manuscript by ordinary publishing standards. The bad news: that was "part 1".

Bugliosi told Norton that this 3000 page manuscript was something that he had worked on it for some ten years. He said that this manuscript was "finished" and could be published on its own, and noted that it could be divided into two books. That was up to the publisher. He said that as far as he was concerned that was just "the first part of it", but that, if Norton wanted to go for Part 2--which involved critiquing in some detail all the different conspiracy theories--why then that would have to be negotiated. In other words, another arrangement would have to be made. Bugliosi's position was that he had now fulfilled his contract.

A new arrangement then evolved. In the aftermath of this, Bugliosi took a much more direct role in the writing of the book, because, as one insider told me, "Vince has the polemics. He's full of bombast." As the summer of 2001 approached, both Bugliosi and the same hired writer (Fred Haines) both had contracts with Norton. The hired writer (Haines) was receiving payments at least through that time.

But not too long afterward, the writer (Fred Haines) had to leave the project because of medical problems. So now Bugliosi was on his own, and he cast about for further editorial assistance, because the book was (a) not really complete, in accordance with Bugliosi's grand design of criticizing all the conspiracy theories; and (b ) everything was now complicated by the release of a huge amount of archival material, after the ARRB shut down on 9/30/98.

Included in that material was significant new data about the medical evidence, and a major amount of work done by the ARRB's Doug Horne. To put it mildly, Bugliosi now had to face the fact that the record was loaded with material, in the medical area, that was supportive of Best Evidence.

(Horne and I used to wonder about this: what was Bugliosi going to do with all this "new evidence"? The answer, it turns out, is simple: included would be Bugliosi's vituperative and insulting personal attack on Doug Horne, who he calls "insane" about four times. He also completely mis-stated the Paul O'Connor situation, which he discovered just prior to publication, and so he had to make a lengthy written apology to O'Connor (yes! he did!) at the bottom of a page in the highly insulting an inaccurate chapter on Best Evidence. But let's not go there--at least, not yet.)

This brings us to the next phase, and the next ghostwriter (or subcontractor, or whatever term suits your fancy). Remember: Oswald was done. The story of Oswald, the "killer" (as Bugliosi refers to him) was complete. But that still left a lot of work, and one area was Dealey Plaza. Another fact was that it was Bugliosi's goal to tackle all the many conspiracy theories. Since he was apparently determined to comment upon, and attempt to knock them all down (every one of them)--he had to become knowledgeable about each and every one of them (or hire someone who was). It is not very complicated to become knowledgeable about each and every conspiracy theory--it just takes a lot of time.

Moreover, the problem [was] made easier by the fact that Bugliosi [did] not use a computer and [was not] conversant with the Internet. He [wrote] in longhand, and dictate[d], but [did] not [even] do email. The most advanced level of technology with which Bugliosi was comfortable [was] fax.

But let's now return to Dealey Plaza, and the problem(s) that presented to Bugliosi, as a writer.

ENTER PAID WRITER #2 --DALE MYERS

Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) hired Dale Myers--basically, because of his expertise in the area of the shots, the Single Bullet theory, the medical evidence, and the acoustics.

[so Now, finally, Bugliosi had someone who could be called a "techie."]

Again, a formal contract was drawn up. Again, the credit on the book was changed. This time, Bugliosi's book--which was [then] titled "FINAL VERDICT"--would now bear the authorial credit that it was written "By Vincent Bugliosi," but now "with" Dale Myers.

READ THAT AGAIN--and note carefully: Bugliosi's book, at this stage, was to be published bearing the authorial credit that it was written "by" Vincent Bugliosi, but "WITH" Dale Myers (similar to the arrangement he had for Helter Skelter. . i.e., "and" Curt Gentry, or "with" Curt Gentry, per some of the later editions). That's the way the title page was going to read. Again: By Bugliosi "with Dale K. Myers." That would have been on the title page.

[And had it been published that way, i.e., as specified in that contract, then Dale Myers would not be considered a ghostwriter.]

Once again, Norton paid money--significant money--and a lot of work in the Dealey Plaza area was done by Dale Myers. In the process, a final arrangement had to be made with the Fred Haines---i.e., he had to be "paid off" so there would be an equitable conclusion to his arrangement.

But then, another complication developed, one that surely proved unfortunate (and probably most uncomfortable) for Bugliosi.

DALE MYERS LEAVES (i.e., "The Exit of Dale Myers")

The creative relationship between Bugliosi and Dale Myers proved incompatible, and had to be dissolved. As a result, what can best be described as "a literary divorce" now had to arranged, and so still another contract--the "divorce"--had to be drafted and executed. That was done successfully, and one provision of the "divorce" was that Dale Myers' role would be secret; i.e., by contract, he could never mention that he was ever "married" (in the literary sense) to Bugliosi.

[in other words: "poof!" -- insofar as the public record would be concerned, Dale Myers would not be known to have had a contractual writing relationship with Bugliosi. Thus, Myers' contribution, if to the extent that it would be published, would be published without his receiving any authorial credit. In short, that would be tantamount to Myers now having the status of a ghostwriter.]

So now, by this point, Bugliosi was in the position of a man who had been married twice (in the literary sense) over a period of some 15 years. Bugliosi had two hired writers--each of whom (originally, and at separate points in time, during the evolution of the final product) were to share the credit on this book, which was subsequently published as "Reclaiming History". One (Fred Haines) wrote much--if not all--of "the Oswald biography" (which is about 260 pages, as published, in "Reclaiming History"). The other (Dale Myers) wrote substantial sections pertaining to Dealey Plaza, acoustics, etc.--i.e., much of the technical stuff, which also appears in "Reclaiming History."

Each of these two individuals had gone through a period during which, in accordance with signed contract, they would be named, on the title page of the book, sharing authorial credit. Each arrangement [then] had to be dissolved; first, the arrangement with Haines had be dissolved, when he had to leave the project; later, the arrangement with Dale Myers had to be dissolved--i.e., when he left because of what are commonly called "creative" differences.

So far, in this narrative, I have mentioned TWO paid writers that Bugliosi employed, in connection with writing his manuscript that was subsequently published as "Reclaiming History"--one with regard to Oswald (Fred Haines) and a second with regard to Dealey Plaza (Dale Myers). In each case, the final arrangement was that neither would share "authorial credit". So, in the final arrangement, both would be accurately described as ghostwriters.

THE BUGLIOSI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (and the terminology of "inserts")

If you will look in Bugliosi's acknowledgments, you will see that much of this is practically stated, explicitly; and the acknowledgments section also contains important insights about Bugliosi's process of creation. Not only does Bugliosi give a generous acknowledgment of Haines, he talks of his book in terms of its being "a book of inserts." This is not insignificant, because when one hires a writer to do the original draft, or provides a sketchy outline, and then tasks a second party to do the actual writing, the "inserting" (or "blending") process becomes very important. "Inserts" represent the modifications, and the place where the author (in this case, Mr. Bugliosi) injects himself, writing segues, transitions, commentary, etc. Maybe he'll modify a fact, or a paragraph, or maybe he'll dictate a complete re-write into a recorder. It all depends. (And maybe, if he's in a bad mood, he'll inject the usual smattering of Bugliosi insults; which, in my eyes, anyway, denigrate Mr. Bugliosi's standing as a human being).

QUOTING NOW from page 1514, the second page of Bugliosi's Acknowledgments:

"In addition to transcribing, from my audio dictation, the contents of 72 sixty-minute and 8 ninety minute tapes. . . Rosemary (his secretary) had to decipher and type at least a thousand (maybe many more ) inserts of mine handwritten in pencil on yellow legal paper. Though resulting from much dictation, the book you have read is, much more than dictation, a book of inserts. UNQUOTE

Bugliosi then goes on to explain the role these "inserts" played. He states that the "first drafts" of various sections he wrote, and "which I then dictated, were not overly long. But then they all increased far beyond their original size in the many subsequent drafts."

* * *

In writing what I have above, I have by no means put forth all the knowledge I have pertaining to this situation. I have tried to stick to what is relevant--and to rebut false charges that imply that my statements are false, or my "global understanding" of how "Reclaiming History" was produced is wrong. None of that is true. And so I do not owe Mr. Bugliosi any apology. In fact, he really owes the public an "up front" explanation of exactly how this book, with its strengths (and its serious weaknesses) was created--because this is not some book on an arcane subject, but rather a book on one of the most important events of the 20th century.

And Bugliosi is attempting to present himself as an "authority on everything." Well, that he is not. Someone who writes in longhand, and is uncomfortable with using a computer could not have written "Reclaiming History" in the form in which it now is. In my opinion, that is just ridiculous.

If he wrote all of it, then kudos to him. But if, because of these collateral arrangements, others were afforded the opportunity to express themselves on his pages, and under the umbrella of a book bearing his name as sole author (and were well compensated or that), and in particular if those "others" include any well known lone nutters (e.g., Dale Myers), then that should be known, too.

The subject is too important for such game-playing. The issue is accountability. "Reclaiming History" is not a book about the weather, or a personal memoir, where a busy person hires a writer to set down the story of his life (a perfectly legitimate activity), but about the murder of an American president.

And so, I believe, a fair amount of transparency is not only appropriate, but called for.

Also, I stand by my statement that since two authors--Fred Haines and Dale Myers--each made substantial contributions; and furthermore, made those contributions under writing contracts in which they were paid substantial sums of money, and according to which they were originally to be named, on the title page as being "authors" (i.e., by Bugliosi "with Fred Haines" and by Bugliosi "with Dale K. Myers"); and, furthermore, since subsequent contracts changed that arrangement, yet those two writers' written contribution remains published, inside Reclaiming History, then it is accurate and proper to say that Reclaiming History was written by Vincent Bugliosi, plus (at least) two ghost writers.

I'm sorry if that bruises Mr. Bugliosi's authorial ego, but that is a fair and accurate description of the situation.

DSL

3/2/2011

Los Angeles, CA

Edited March 4, 2011 by David Lifton

[David Von Pein]

yawn

[William Kelly]

But you know nothing about Bugliosi's editor, Starling Lawrence? Or Publisher Donald S. Lamn, the guys who commissioned the work, who dolled out all that dough to Bugliosi, Haines and Myers, but get no credit or mention? - BK

DAVID LIFTON SAID:

Oh pleez...I'm really sick and tired of seeing Dale Myers quoted "in defense of" Vincent Bugliosi. Dale Myers was a paid ghost writer for Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History." Hundreds and hundreds of pages were written/rewritten by Myers.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have a very strong feeling that Mr. David S. Lifton doesn't know what the hell he's babbling about here.

Vincent Bugliosi gave full credit to Dale K. Myers for Dale's writing contributions in the "Acknowledgments" section of "Reclaiming History". So that eliminates Mr. Myers as a "ghostwriter" right there, because ghostwriters are NOT ACKNOWLEDGED AT ALL in the book that they are helping to "ghostwrite".

DVP --you are misinformed. A ghostwriter "is someone who writes something for or with another person on the understanding that the other person will receive sole credit as the author"; a "writer who gives the credit of authorship to someone else."

The existence of signed contracts, payments, and legally enforceable confidentially agreements are the standard apparatus of a ghostwriting arrangement. (And what is said in the "acknowledgments" section is really besides the point.)

Fred Haines, for example, received upwards of $50,000 per year--for years on end--for his paid writing services. Furthermore, his explicit contribution to Reclaiming History is the ENTIRE 260 page biography of Oswald. That's what Haines wrote--laboring over it week after week, month after month. If Haines was NOT a ghostwriter, then RECLAIMING HISTORY would be published with the authorship reading "by" Vincent Bugliosi "with" Fred Haines. But it is not: as published, the sole author is Vincent Bugliosi, yet Haines was paid in the hundreds of thousands of dollars--let me repeat that, in the HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars--for a period spanning almost a decade--for his work. He was paid well, and I'm sure his research was accurate. The fact that Bugliosi mentions him in the acknowledgments sections is a nice gensture but does not mean Haines was not a ghost-writer.

Although the particulars are different, everything I have said above also applies to the arrangement Bugliosi had with Dale Myers--the specific assignment(s), spelled out in a contract;, specified amounts to be paid; a legal understanding (established in the signed contract applying to Reclaiming History, as published) that Myers would receive no credit as the author; the legal requirement that the entire matter would be kept secret (i.e., "confidentiality" etc.).

The fact that Bugliosi says--in effect--"thankyou" to Haines and/or Dale Myers in no way changes the essential fact that both were paid writers; and, in fact, by the standard definition (that their names do not appear as authors, or co-authors) were paid ghostwriters.

As far as the actual number of pages written by these two individuals, my original statements stand: Fred Haines wrote the entire 260 page biography of Oswald. (FYI: That is conceded by Bugliosi, in his ackowledgements section). And Myers contributed considerably more, in terms of page length.

It should surprise no one that Bugliosi has a history of paying writers for their assistance.

Going back some years to the book "Helter Skelter": In that case, Bugliosi availed himself of the services of author (now deceased) Kurt Gentry, and the title page of the book reads "by" Bugliosi "with Kurt Gentry". But, as I wrote in my original Ghostwriter in the Sky essay, "those of us who knew Kurt Gentry know that he wrote Helter Skelter." (Perhaps I should add the word "essentially"--i.e., that he was a primary author of Helter Skelter"; because I would certainly not claim that Bugliosi hired Gentry, paid some money, waved a wand, and out came a book). Bugliosi was the Manson prosecutor. It was his life experience that had to be turned into words. And it was Gentry's job to do just that.

As I wrote in Ghostwriters in the Sky (and now quoting. . . ):

In writing Helter Skelter, Vince Bugliosi availed himself of the services of author Kurt Gentry, and the title page on the book reads by Bugliosi "with Kurt Gentry." Those of us who knew Kurt Gentry know that he wrote Helter Skelter. It was an honorable and overt ghosting job--overt in the sense that Kurt's name was on the cover of the book.

Ghosting is done all the time, and it is not necessarily publicized. Publishers are not running a CIA type operation. They can request--even demand--that the writing contribution be kept secret; alternatively it may be acknowledged right on the cover of the book, as in "by Joe Smith, with Eric Jones."

Let's now turn to "Reclaiming History," which was originally titled "FINAL VERDICT," and was advertised under that title for many years on Amazon.

Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination grew out of the role he played as "prosecutor" (opposite Spence, as defense attorney) in the London Weekly Television "Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald," which was produced by LWT's Mark Redhead, and broadcast about 1985/86 (on SHOWTIME).

In the late 1980s, in the aftermath of the London Weekly Television "Trial of Oswald", and then its broadcast on SHOWTIME, Bugliosi obtained a contract from W W Norton for a hefty sum, reputed to be close to $1M. I cannot vouch for this number. But its what I was told.

Soon thereafter, Bugliosi made an arrangement with a Los Angeles writer--whether he would be called a ghostwriter or just a "writer" or a "writing subcontractor"--is really besides the point. In many ways, it is a "distinction without a difference," (as the lawyers might say.) The writer was Fred Haines, and for years, Haines worked on the sections of Bugliosi's book pertaining to the life of Oswald. . .

Haines received regular payments from W. W. Norton. (Those who save their old Compuserve posts will find Fred Haines on those boards). Those who save check stubs will find payments made by Norton to Fred Haines. The arrangement with Haines --and it went on for many years--was that the book would be "by Bugliosi," but "with Fred Haines." This was similar to the titling of Helter Skelter, which was "by Bugliosi," but "with Kurt Gentry." In other words, similar to the case with Gentry, Haines had a separate contract with the publisher. In his acknowledgements, Bugliosi gives a very generous credit to Fred Haines. He's a fine writer, a good thinker, and a very polite man. Unlike Bugliosi, who engages in personal insults and ridicule, Fred [was a] gentleman. UNQUOTE

And let me add: Had Final Verdict" been published in that format --"by" Vincent Bugliosi but "with" Fred Haines, then Haines would not, in that instance, be considered a ghostwriter. (Why? Because his name would be on the title page, as a writer).

My essay then went on to describe what happened next--and how it came to pass that Haines left, and Dale Myers came on board. Again, quoting:

In mid-October 1999, Bugliosi turned in a "manuscript" to W W Norton, and I put the words in quotes, because there was a serious problem with it being published in the form it was then in. Its easy to parody the Bulgiosi situation at that point in time: there was "good news" and "bad news". The "good news" was that he turned in 3000 pages, a very outsized manuscript by ordinary publishing standards. The bad news: that was "part 1".

Bugliosi told Norton that this 3000 page manuscript was something that he had worked on it for some ten years. He said that this manuscript was "finished" and could be published on its own, and noted that it could be divided into two books. That was up to the publisher. He said that as far as he was concerned that was just "the first part of it", but that, if Norton wanted to go for Part 2--which involved critiquing in some detail all the different conspiracy theories--why then that would have to be negotiated. In other words, another arrangement would have to be made. Bugliosi's position was that he had now fulfilled his contract.

A new arrangement then evolved. In the aftermath of this, Bugliosi took a much more direct role in the writing of the book, because, as one insider told me, "Vince has the polemics. He's full of bombast." As the summer of 2001 approached, both Bugliosi and the same hired writer (Fred Haines) both had contracts with Norton. The hired writer (Haines) was receiving payments at least through that time.

But not too long afterward, the writer (Fred Haines) had to leave the project because of medical problems. So now Bugliosi was on his own, and he cast about for further editorial assistance, because the book was (a) not really complete, in accordance with Bugliosi's grand design of criticizing all the conspiracy theories; and (b ) everything was now complicated by the release of a huge amount of archival material, after the ARRB shut down on 9/30/98.

Included in that material was significant new data about the medical evidence, and a major amount of work done by the ARRB's Doug Horne. To put it mildly, Bugliosi now had to face the fact that the record was loaded with material, in the medical area, that was supportive of Best Evidence.

(Horne and I used to wonder about this: what was Bugliosi going to do with all this "new evidence"? The answer, it turns out, is simple: included would be Bugliosi's vituperative and insulting personal attack on Doug Horne, who he calls "insane" about four times. But let's not go there--at least, not yet.)

This brings us to the next phase, and the next ghostwriter (or subcontractor, or whatever term suits your fancy). Remember: Oswald was done. The story of Oswald, the "killer" (as Bugliosi refers to him) was complete. But that still left a lot of work, and one area was Dealey Plaza. Another fact was that it was Bugliosi's goal to tackle all the many conspiracy theories. Since he was apparently determined to comment upon, and attempt to knock them all down (every one of them)--he had to become knowledgeable about each and every one of them (or hire someone who was). It is not very complicated to become knowledgeable about each and every conspiracy theory--it just takes a lot of time.

Moreover, the problem [was] made easier by the fact that Bugliosi [did] not use a computer and [was] conversant with the Internet. He [wrote] in longhand, and dictate[d], but [did] not [even] do email. The most advanced level of technology with which Bugliosi [was comfortable [was] fax.

But let's return to Dealey Plaza.

ENTER PAID WRITER #2 --DALE MYERS

Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) hired Dale Myers--basically, because of his expertise in the area of the shots, the Single Bullet theory, the medical evidence, and the acoustics.

[so Now, finally, Bugliosi had someone who could be called a "techie."]

Again, a formal contract was drawn up. Again, the credit on the book was changed. This time, Bugliosi's book--which was [then] titled "FINAL VERDICT"--would now bear the authorial credit that it was written "By Vincent Bugliosi," but now "with" Dale Myers.

Read that again--and note carefully: Bugliosi's book, at this stage, was to bear the authorial credit that it was written "by" Vincent Bugliosi, but "WITH" Dale Myers (similar to the arrangement he had for Helter Skelter. . i.e., "with" Kurt Gentry). That's the way the title page was going to read.

[And had it been published that way, then Dale Myers would not be considered a ghostwriter.]

Once again, Norton paid money--significant money--and a lot of work in the Dealey Plaza area was done by Dale Myers. In the process, a final arrangement had to be made with the Fred Haines---i.e., he had to be "paid off" so there would be an equitable conclusion to his arrangement.

But then, another complication developed.

DALE MYERS LEAVES (i.e., "The Exit of Dale Myers")

The creative relationship between Bugliosi and Dale Myers proved incompatible, and had to be dissolved. As a result, what can best be described as "a literary divorce" now had to arranged, and so another contract--the "divorce"--had to be drafted and executed. That was done successfully, and one provision of the "divorce" was that Dale Myers' role would e secret; i.e., by contract, he could never mention that he was ever "married" (in the literary sense) to Bugliosi.

[Thus, his contribution, if then published, and without receiving any authorial credit, would be tantamount to his having had the status of a ghostwriter.]

So now, by this point, Bugliosi was in the position of a man who had been married twice (in the literary sense) over a period of some 15 years. Bugliosi had two hired writers--each of whom (originally) were to share the credit on this book. One (Haines) wrote much--if not all--of "the Oswald biography" (which is about 260 pages, as published). The other (Dale Myers) wrote substantial sections on Dealey Plaza, acoustics, etc.--i.e., much of the technical stuff.

Each had a signed contract, in which they would be named, on the title page of the book. Each arrangement [then] had to be dissolved; first, the arrangement with Haines had be dissolved, when he had to leave the project; later, the arrangement with Dale Myers had to be dissolved--i.e., when he left.

So far, in this narrative, I have mentioned TWO paid writers that Bugliosi employed, in connection with writing his manuscript--one with regard to Oswald (Fred Haines) and a second with regard to Dealey Plaza (Dale Myers). In each case, the final arrangement was that neither would share "authorial credit". So, in the final arrangment, both would be accurately described as ghostwriters.

THE BUGLIOSI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (and the terminology of "inserts")

If you will look in Bugliosi's acknowledgments, you will see that much of this is practically stated; and also insights about Bugliosi's process of creation. Not only does Bugliosi give a generous acknowledgment of Haines, he talks of his book in terms of its being "a book of inserts." This is not insignificant, because when one hires a writer to do the original draft, or provides a sketchy outline, and tasks a second party to do the actual writing, then the "inserting" process becomes very important. "Inserts" represent the modifications, and the place where the author (in this case, Mr. Bugliosi) injects himself. Maybe he'll modify a fact, or a paragraph, or maybe he'll dictate a complete re-write into a recorder. It all depends. (And maybe, if he's in a bad mood, he'll inject the usual smattering of Bugliosi insults).

QUOTING NOW from page 1514, the second page of Bugliosi's Acknowledgments:

"In addition to transcribing, from my audio dictation, the contents of 72 sixty-minute and 8 ninety minute tapes. . . Rosemary (his secretary) had to decipher and type at least a thousand (maybe many more ) inserts of mine handwritten in pencil on yellow legal paper. Though resulting from much dictation, the book you have read is, much more than dictation, a book of inserts. UNQUOTE

Bugliosi then goes on to explain the role these "inserts" played. He states that the "first drafts" of various sections he wrote, and "which I then dictated, were not overly long. But then they all increased far beyond their original size in the many subsequent drafts."

* * *

In writing what I have above, I have by no means put forth all the knowledge I have pertaining to this situation. I have tried to stick to what is relevant--and to rebut the false charges that implies that my statements are false. They are not. And so I do not owe Mr. Bugliosi any apology. In fact, he really owes the public an "up front" explanation of exactly how this book, with its strengths (and its serious weaknesses) was created--because this is not some book on an arcane subject, but rather a book on one of the most important events of the 20th century.

And Bugliosi is attempting to present himself as an "authority on everything." Well, that he is not.

If he wrote all of it, then kudos to him. But if, because of these collateral arrangements, others were afforded the opportunity to express themselves on his pages, and under the umbrella of a book bearing his name as sole author, and in particular if those "others" include any well known lone nutters (e.g., Dale Myers), then that should be known, too.

The subject is too important for such game-playing. The issue is accountability. "Reclaiming History" is not a book about the weather, or a personal memoir, where a busy person hires a writer to set down the story of his life (a perfectly legitimate activity), but about the murder of an American president.

And so, I believe, a fair amount of transparency is not only appropriate, but called for.

Also, I stand by my statement that since two authors--Fred Haines and Dale Myers--each made substantial contributions; and furthermore, made those contributions under contracts in which they were originally to be named, on the title page as being "authors" (i.e., by Bugliosi "with Fred Haines" and by Bugliosi "with Dale K. Myers"); and, furthermore, since subsequent contracts changed that arrangement, yet those two writers' pages, i.e., their contribution, remains published, inside Reclaiming History, then it is accurate and proper to say that Reclaiming History was written by Vincent Bugliosi, plus (at least) two ghost writers.

I'm sorry if that bruises Mr. Bugliosi's authorial ego, but that is a fair and accurate description of the situation.

DSL

3/2/2011

Los Angeles, CA