Vincent Bugliosi and Ghostwriting

[David Lifton]

As I've stated publicly, ghostwriting is an honorable profession. Publishers often contract with writers to do the writing for an author who either cannot write, or doesn’t have the time or inclination to write, or for whatever reason. Often, the reason is simply that the author is a busy person, has something he wants to convey, but doesn't have the time it would take to sit down a craft a book. So a writer is hired to do that job. Sometimes the identity of the ghost remains anonymous; in other cases, the book's title reads "by Joe Smith, with Tom Jones."

Bugliosi's involvement in the JFK case goes way back to 1985, and the television program The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, which was originally contracted for by London Weekly Television (and a producer named Mark Redhead). In that program, Bugliosi was prosecuting attorney, and Gerry Spence was defense attorney. Numerous witnesses were flown in from the U.S., and the trial was conducted—before a judge and jury—in accordance with standard legal procedures. After the program was originally aired in London, many hours were later broadcast on Showtime. From that experience, Bugliosi, who thought he knew everything there was to know about the JFK case, set out to write a book. After all, he had met many of the witnesses, he "knew the case" (or so he thought); and he would set the record straight.

Unfortunately, life is not that simple—as Bugliosi soon learned. And despite the time and effort he put in on the JFK case, he has been humbled by the experience. As he himself has admitted, the JFK case "is a bottomless pit." He refers to it a "this terribly long journey" and persons who know him personally have told me he has been humbled by the experience.

Bugliosi states as much in his own acknowledgements, "With every project that we take on in our lives, we intuitively know. . that if we work long and hard enough, we will reach the bottom of the pile. But I found. . that there is no bottom to the pile in the Kennedy case. . it is endless. . " (Reclaiming History, p. 1513).

In short, Bugliosi has not found closure. One problem is that Bugliosi's goal—of refuting every single conspiracy theory (or at least all the principle ones)—was unrealistic and led to an unmanageable research project. Another is that the particular theory to which Bugliosi subscribes—that Oswald was guilty, and acted alone—is simply false. That fact will only be further validated with the passage of time. In short, Vincent Bugliosi—like many honorable reactionaries before him—is on the wrong side of history.

Further, he will not prevail by writing that depends on personal insults (comparing the JFK researchers to bacteria, and the documents they won under FOIA or as a result of the ARRB, as their "oxygen") or by his outsized ego.

But let's return to the issue ghostwriting, because here the issue is not just how the book was written (or "assembled," as the case may be) but the credibility of Mr. Bugliosi, himself.

Just how knowledgeable is he about the JFK case himself—or is he just a blowhard who has strong beliefs, and likes to argue and debate, but used the services of an assortment of experts when it came to the details of the actual writing?

There are various “shades of gray” when it comes to writing about the Kennedy assassination, and how a book about such a complex such as the JFK case is assembled. Let’s explore the situation as it applies to Bugliosi.

* * *

The Kennedy assassination is quite involved, Bugliosi is a busy man and this particular project, which began in 1985, extended forward some 22 years to 2007, before publication. Indeed, Bugliosi's project went through two major periods in its literary evolution—one, when the proposed book was titled Final Verdict, and which came to an ending of sorts around October, 1999; the second, when it was retitled (and expanded) and called Reclaiming History.

Moreover, over the course of some 15 years, there were at least two ghost-writers who played key roles in the creation of the book as finally published, in 2007, under the title Reclaiming History. These two individuals—each who worked as paid "subcontractors" of a sort—are Fred Haines, of Los Angeles, and Dale Myers, the JFK researcher from Livonia, Michigan. Each was a paid ghost-writer, and each had a contract with Bugliosi's New York publisher, W. W. Norton.

These two individuals worked on (i.e., contributed to) the manuscript during distinctly different time periods. In each case, the arrangement called for a shared credit; i.e., the arrangement called for the book—when published—to be "by" Vincent Bugliosi but "with" the other named author.

In the case of Haines, the book's title was FINAL VERDICT, and was to be "by" Bugliosi but "with Fred Haines." In the case of Dale Myers, the book was titled (as it is presently published) as RECLAIMING HISTORY and the author's credit was to read "by" Bugliosi, but "with Dale Myers."

The fact that two separate ghost writers were hired over a period of 15 years—writers with signed contracts who were each remunerated to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars—should put an end to the nonsense that Bugliosi did not utilize ghostwriters. But apparently, there are those who want to believe "no matter what," so I suggest they channel such energies, and such a "will to believe", into theological areas; or perhaps ask Bugliosi to make public the paid contracts that he (and/or his publisher) had with each of these two writers.

As to Bugliosi and the matter of ghostwriting, here is the basic outline of the facts.

* * *

Let's start with Haines, whose arrangement goes back to the 1990s.

Writer Fred Haines—an amiable man and talented intellect—received regular monthly payments from W. W. Norton. (Those who save their old Compuserve posts will find Fred Haines on those boards). Haines' compensation was at the rate of approximately $50,000 per annum. He worked on Bugliosi's project for years—indeed, for the better part of a decade, while Bugliosi immersed himself in other matters (e.g., the O. J. case).

Haines' primary task was to write "the biography" of Oswald—similar to the work that Attorneys Jenner and Liebeler did for the Warren Commission (See Appendix 13 of the Warren Report), only a greatly expanded version of that. As published, Haines contribution comes to 260 pages. ( See page 513 to 788, listed as two chapters in Bugliosi's table of contents).

As just noted, the arrangement with Haines --and it went on for many years--was that the author's credit on the book would read "by Bugliosi," but "with Fred Haines." This was similar to the titling of HELTER SKELTER, which was "by Bugliosi," but "with Kurt Gentry". But those who knew Kurt Gentry knew that he wrote HELTER SKELTER . In setting out to write about the JFK case, Bugliosi was continuing that same pattern of behavior that began back in the days of the Manson case—i.e., "I know all this, but I'm a busy man, too busy to write, so let's hire someone to do the job." So a writer (Fred Haines) was hired, he had a separate contract with the publisher, and was paid monthly by the publisher.

Going now to the matter of JFK researcher Dale Myers, and how he came to be involved, we must first move towards the end of what might be called the "Fred Haines" period, and a significant turning point in the evolution of Bugliosi's work.

* * *

In mid-October 1999—this is now 14 years after the original TV special—Bugliosi turned in a "manuscript" of (what was then called FINAL VERDICT) to W. W. Norton. Unfortunately, there was a serious problem with Bugliosi's 1999 manuscript being published in the form in which it was presented at the time. Bugliosi's manuscript was 3,000 pages long; furthermore, Bugliosi was referring to that submission as "Part 1".

Bugliosi told Norton (this is mid-October, 1999) that this 3000 page manuscript was something that he had worked on it for some ten years (i.e., 1989 – 1999). He said that this manuscript was now "finished" and could be published on its own. He noted that it could be divided into two books. That decision was up to the publisher. He said that as far as he was concerned, what he had just submitted was just "the first part of it", but that, if Norton wanted to go forward with a Part 2 "which involved critiquing in some detail all the different conspiracy theories") why then a new arrangement would have to be negotiated.

Bugliosi's position, in short, was that he had now (circa, 1999) fulfilled his contract. He had arrived at a plateau of sorts; and what had been his experience starting with London Weekly Television, back in 1985, and the role he had played in that TV special, had now morphed into this manuscript, circa 1999.

As we now know, the publisher did NOT publish Bugliosi's 1999 3,000 page submission, then titled "Final Verdict", with the credit then reading by Buglioi and "with Fred Haines."

So the work now continued. As the summer of 2001 approached, both Bugliosi and Fred Haines both had contracts with Norton, and Haines was receiving payments at least through that time. But not too long afterwards, Haines had to leave the project because of medical problems. So a "parting of the ways" was arranged, and now Bugliosi was on his own, and he cast about for further editorial assistance.

Bugliosi needed assistance because (1) his work was not really complete, in accordance with his grand design of criticizing all the conspiracy theories; and (2) everything was now complicated by the work of the ARRB between 1995 and 1998, and the attendant release of a huge amount of archival material. Some of this "new material" was released starting around 1994, but then much more followed, in the way of depositions, additional documents, and internal memos, after the ARRB shut down on 9/30/98.

So now, before proceeding with what happened next in connection with Bugliosi's project, let's take a small side trip on how the ARRB's work impacted on the JFK case in general, and, in particular, Bugliosi's writing project (and the subsequent entry of "Ghostwriter #2").

SIDETRIP: 1998: About the ARRB and the document releases

One cannot overestimate the importance of the (1992) JFK Records Act, or the work of the ARRB (1995-1998) on the history of this case. Nor can one overstate the effect the release of millions of pages –in late 1998. In addition, there was the advent of the Internet –with the first browsers, etc., circa 1995—and the matter of hundreds of thousands of pages coming "on line" (e.g., at Mary Ferrell dot org, or in various university collections, and even at the National Archives). In other words, not only did the JFK Records Act change everything, so did the advent of the "information superhighway."

Indeed, Bugliosi was not immune from the effect of this torrent of information. But, unfortunately, he was particularly ill-equipped to handle this torrent of data, because he is (or at least was) not computer literate, and worked with pencil and paper and dictating machine. Moreover, he did not use the Internet. So Bugliosi was like a man on a bicycle, while cars were whizzing by on the freeway. He was constantly having to write the National Archives for information, didn't know how to use a search engine, and I can only wonder when he first learned what a pdf file was.

But now, back to the ARRB and the problem(s) it presented.

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, who was Chief Analyst for Military Records" on the staff of the ARRB; and played a major role in handling numerous matters pertaining to the medical evidence and the Zapruder film. To put it mildly, Bugliosi, who adopts the manner of someone who knows everything about the JFK case, now had to face the fact that the record was loaded with material, in the medical area—in the form of depositions and staff memos—that was supportive of Best Evidence. And lest there be any question about Doug Horne's conclusions about Best Evidence, here is what he has publicly posted:

QUOTE FROM DOUG HORNE (as posted on Education Forum):

David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.)

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 his personal attack on Doug Horne, who he calls "insane" about four times; and a completely ridiculous and superficial chapter on my own work. But let's not go there--at least, not in this post. The fact is that, when cornered, Bugliosi behaves like a name-calling street bully, but let's return to the primary issue at hand, the matter of the ghostwriting—i.e., the issue of the employment of paid writers by his publisher, who rendered major assistance to Bugliosi over the course of some 10 years (at least).

BUGLIOSI AND GHOSTWRITING (contd.)

As previously stated, first paid ghostwriter was Fred Haines. Haines' arrangement with Bugliosi—which went back many years to the 1990s (at least)— involved an arrangement in which he would write the "Oswald biography" of FINAL VERDICT (which was then the title) –the book to be published with the author's credit reading "by" Vincent Bugliosi, but "with Fred Haines."

With the 1998 ARRB releases, and the advent of the Internet, Bugliosi needed assistance to complete his project. This brings us to the second phase.

ENTER Ghostwriter #2 –DALE MYERS

Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) hired another writer--this time, one with expertise in the area of the shots, the medical evidence, and the acoustics. Dale Myers—the JFK researcher who appeared with Bugliosi on a Discovery Channel documentary—was solicited, and agreed. Once again, as was the case with Haines, a formal contract was drawn up. Furthermore, it was agreed that the credit for the book would now read "by Vincent Bugliosi," but "with Dale Myers."

Unfortunately for Bugliosi (and perhaps because both of these fellows have outsized egos), the collaboration between Dale Myers and Bugliosi didn't work out. Consequently, and similar to a marriage that doesn't work, a "literary divorce" now had to be arranged (i.e., another contract had to be drawn up—this one spelling out the terms of their "separation.) One of the provisions of this second contract was that Myers agreed that he would never divulge the existence of the original arrangement, or its dissolution. In other words, Myers is bound by contract not to talk about the writing he did for Bugliosi, what he contributed, how much he was paid for his contribution, or the circumstances of their "divorce."

Consequently, Dale Myers has TWO contracts with publisher W. W. Norton:

--the first, when his writing deal was originally formalized, and the book was to be published with the authorial credit reading by Vincent Bugliosi "with Dale Myers";

-- the second, when their collaboration didn't work as planned and their separation had to be formalized.

So now, addressing the issue of ghostwriting and counting up the signed contracts for ghostwriting, here's where we stand: there's one (and probably two) with Fred Haines (one for the original arrangement, and one for the separation); similarly, there were two contracts with Dale Myers—one for the original arrangement, the second for the "literary divorce."

These contracts span a total of about 15 years, and account for a significant amount of the writing that appears in the published work—irrespective of how hard Bugliosi worked on the project, or how much of the work represents his own writing—i.e., his own "original writing."

OK, then, so much for Bugliosi and his utilization of paid ghost-writers. Now lets turn to the actual contributions of each paid ghost-writer.

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE TWO GHOSTS—An Attempt at Quantification

Fred Haines wrote the entire section on Oswald—i.e., the "Lee Oswald biography," such as it appears in Bugliosi's book. That section –from page 513 to 788—is about 260 pages. In a way, it’s a "mini-book" enclosed within the larger work.

Dale Myers wrote the original drafts of material on Dealey Plaza, the acoustics, etc. As to the size of the written contributions of these two individuals, we can consult Bugliosi's own acknowledgements, so lets now do just that, plug in some numbers and "do the math":

From Bugliosi's own acknowledgements section (Reclaiming History, pp. 1514-1515), is the acknowledgement Bugliosi gives Dale Myers:

Dale helped me in the writing of several sections of Book One, most notably on acoustic, "Four Days in November" (particularly in the Oswald interrogations), and all matters dealing with still photography).

This statement is particularly significant, because Bugliosi, in the acknowledgements, compares the size of the Myers contribution to that of Fred Haines (his other acknowledged ghostwriter, and the one who wrote the Oswald biography, which is 260 pages in length, as published). Importantly, Bugliosi makes clear that Myers' contribution was larger. Specifically, Bugliosi compares his (Haines') contribution to Myers, as follows:

the other person who played a writing role, though a smaller one, was Fred Haines (Bugliosi, p. 1515).

". . . a smaller one. . . "??

To get some sense of what is going on here, quantitatively speaking: we know that the Oswald biography--"Lee Harvey Oswald", which extends from page 513 to 788—is about 260 pages. Since Haines 260 pages is referred to by Bugliosi (again, who compares it to Myers, in size) as being "the smaller one," it seems reasonable to assume that Myers' contribution was considerably larger than 260 pages.

But note: even if the two contributions were of equal size, that would mean (based on Bugliosi's own admissions, in his acknowledgements) a total of 520 pp (260 plus 260) was written by these two paid ghosts. In other words, at least 520 pages of this book—i.e., at least one-third of a book whose main text (including the "Epilogue") runs to page number 1510—was written by two paid ghosts, each of whom had signed contracts with Bugliosi's publisher, W. W. Norton.

As to what changes were made by Bugliosi in the material submitted, I can only state that Dale Myers, upon first receiving a copy of the book and examining it, told a third party (with regards to the material he provided): "Well, that's just about exactly as I wrote it!"

But now, for a second look as to the actual amount of ghostwriting involved, let's return (again) to the number's, and "do the math"—this time, with a closer look at the area of Dale Myer's contribution. (Dale Myers, remember, is the fellow forbidden to talk about any of this, under the terms of the second contract he has with Norton, i.e., the one that is akin to a "literary divorce.")

Bulgiosi's opening chapter—"Four Days in November"—is just under 320 pages (it extends from page 3 to page 319). The section on acoustics, in the end notes, runs about 25 pages. Adding these together, that brings us to a sum of about 350 pages (for Dale Myers), but that is only the beginning—because, as Bugliosi himself said, Myers contribution extended beyond "Four Days in November" to "all matters dealing with still photography."

So, (and just estimating here), if we were to add another 50 pages (at least) for all that material (i.e., "all matters dealing with still photography"—Bugliosi's own words), we are up to a Dale Myers contribution of about 400 pages. Adding that to Haines' 260, that would bring us to a total of 660 pages of a book whose main text ends at page 1510. So by this analysis, (which admittedly involves some reasonable estimates) we come to numbers suggesting that "one-third" is conservative, and that in fact almost half of Bugliosi's book (at least) was written, for the most part, by these two paid ghostwriters.

But even that doesn't put an end to the subject of ghostwriting, because there are any number of other areas of the book where Bugliosi may well have received major outside assistance. Remember: Bugliosi didn't use the Internet, or even a computer, which is another factor that suggests he received plenty of outside assistance, at a time when a flood of information was being released, and Bugliosi was writing with pencil and paper, and didn't even know how to use the net. So, in view of all this, I believe that the basic thrust of what I previously wrote about this issue of Bugliosi and his use of ghostwriters (see my Internet essay, "Ghostwriters in the Sky", posted on the Education Forum) is quite correct. I believe that at least half the book—if not more—is ghostwritten.

BUGLIOSI AND THE MATTER OF "inserts"

Bugliosi himself gives the game away when he writes, in his acknowledgements (see p. 1514), that his book is "a book of inserts."):

Though resulting from much dictation, the book you have read is, much more than dictation, a book of inserts. By that I mean the first drafts of sections I wrote (e.g., Zapruder film, wounds to the president, CIA, Oliver Stone, etc.) which I then dictated, were not overly long. But they all increased far beyond their original size in the many subsequent drafts with the addition of yellow-page inserts

I know of no other writer who talks of "his" work in that way; and the language the author himself uses certainly suggests a major collaborative effort, with a number of third parties.

In fact, Dale Myers has told confidants that the "original" Bugliosi sections—as he received them—were "a complete mess" and "terrible" and in need of thorough rewriting and revision.

Again, I repeat: ghostwriting is an honorable profession. There is nothing wrong with it, per se. In writing Helter Skelter, Vincent 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.

But no one else's name is on the cover of RECLAIMING HISTORY, and that is part of the problem. This is especially important if one-third to one half of the manuscript was originally written by third parties, regardless of whether or not Bugliosi thoroughly endorses their ideas, or made minor editorial revisions (which, in Bugliosi's case, often appear in the form of nasty insults and ad hominem personal attacks).

Which brings us back to the primary issue at hand—the matter of ghostwriting.

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."

The problem with RECLAIMING HISTORY is that Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) has tried to minimize the extent of the writing assistance he received and present this as entirely his own work. Unlike the case of HELTER SKELTER, where Kurt Gentry's name appears on the cover of the book, in this instance, Bugliosi has followed a different path. Consequently, most of Bugliosi's defenders are unaware of the true situation. They see a 1600 page book with a wide variety of data, a lot of it quite technical, and think that Bugliosi (who wasn’t even experienced enough to use the Internet, much less a computer Word processing program, when it came to the writing) wrote it all himself. The fact is that, in several critical areas, these two paid ghostwriters did the heavy lifting; and, in at least those areas, Bugliosi functioned more or less as "managing editor.”

In no way do I mean to state or imply that Bugliosi did not work very hard on this project—indeed, for years on end--only that he didn’t do it all by himself.

That's why Doug Horne refers to this work as "Bugliosi by Committee." It is why I have referred to this book as a "glorified anthology" (with everything switched to the first person) and something that should perhaps have been titled Helter Smelter.

[David G. Healy]

[...]

That's why Doug Horne refers to this work as "Bugliosi by Committee." It is why I have referred to this book as a "glorified anthology" (with everything switched to the first person) and something that should perhaps have been titled Helter Smelter.

I'll provide the bellows...

Hope all is well David, nice to see you post here...

David Healy

[William Kelly]

While I don't know much about W.W. Norton, other than it is an old and well established New York publishing house, I find it hard to believe they paid Bugliosi so much money over so many years, decades, and also financed a ghost writer at the tune of $50,000 a year for a decade and dished out six figures to Dale Myers for his contribution, without recognition.

If any truely independent JFK assassination researcher, like Larry Hancock, Stu Wexler, Greg Parker, et al. had that kind of money we would certainly be much futher along than we are right now.

In addition, W. W. Norton had an exclusive deal with the 9/11 Commission, apparently arranged by their chief of staff Phil Zelikow, to publish the first edition of the Final Report.

I wonder if the same WWN executives were involved?

Are there any W.W. Norton Mockingbird connections?

Bill Kelly

[Pat Speer]

Great research, David. It's particularly ironic that you should be the one to expose Bugliosi's lack of honesty on this matter, when he praises your research in his book (while criticizing the conclusions you reach from your research). It now falls upon him to acknowledge your research, and "explain" why he's been presenting his book as his sole effort, when it has been a group effort from the start, or why the conclusions you've drawn from the contracts and statements of Haines and Myers are just plain wrong.

I find it significant that Bugliosi, while claiming his book has shut down all conspiracy theories, has refused to support this claim in an open televised debate. If we are as wacky as he claims, one would think he'd relish the opportunity to demonstrate this before an audience.

[Christopher Hall]

Great research, David. It's particularly ironic that you should be the one to expose Bugliosi's lack of honesty on this matter, when he praises your research in his book (while criticizing the conclusions you reach from your research). It now falls upon him to acknowledge your research, and "explain" why he's been presenting his book as his sole effort, when it has been a group effort from the start, or why the conclusions you've drawn from the contracts and statements of Haines and Myers are just plain wrong.

I find it significant that Bugliosi, while claiming his book has shut down all conspiracy theories, has refused to support this claim in an open televised debate. If we are as wacky as he claims, one would think he'd relish the opportunity to demonstrate this before an audience.

Bugliosi's tactic is to talk loud and interrupt and talk over people, not reason with them.

I just received my copy of Reclaiming History from Amazon today ($7.50 + 4.00 shipping).

I don't plan on reading it, but I want to review parts of it.

[Pat Speer]

I just noticed on another Forum that Bugliosi devotee David Von Pein is attacking Lifton on this matter, and claiming Bugliosi's use of material from his former co-writers is irrelevant, and not the same as his using "ghost-writers". He claims that because Bugliosi acknowledges the input of Haines and Myers in the book, they are not "ghosts" and therefore not "ghostwriters". Although Von Pein tries to dismiss the problems with the medical evidence as "nit-picking," as if the actual location of the entrance on Kennedy's head has no bearing on Oswald's guilt or innocence, I believe he is the one "nit-picking" here.

Nowhere in Bugliosi's interviews, and nowhere in the ad campaign for his book, will you find his admission that as much as a third of his book was written and researched by others. You just won't find it. Instead, he and others hawking his book (including HBO) have repeatedly asserted that he personally mastered all the details of the case in order to shut down all the conspiracy theories, blah blah blah. Lifton's research proves, if nothing else, that this was false advertising.

I believe one can make the argument that someone willing to misrepresent the nature of a book ( i.e. how it was written) in order to sell more copies, would also be willing to twist its content to mislead its potential audience. Like Spitzer and his hookers, Bugliosi's use of Haines and Myers, and his paying them to keep quiet, raises questions about his integrity. I mean why, if everything was on the up and up, as claimed by Von Pein, would Bugliosi arrange to have them "silenced"?

Mighty mighty peculiar, in my opinion.

[Terry Mauro]

I just noticed on another Forum that Bugliosi devotee David Von Pein is attacking Lifton on this matter, and claiming Bugliosi's use of material from his former co-writers is irrelevant, and not the same as his using "ghost-writers". He claims that because Bugliosi acknowledges the input of Haines and Myers in the book, they are not "ghosts" and therefore not "ghostwriters". Although Von Pein tries to dismiss the problems with the medical evidence as "nit-picking," as if the actual location of the entrance on Kennedy's head has no bearing on Oswald's guilt or innocence, I believe he is the one "nit-picking" here.

Nowhere in Bugliosi's interviews, and nowhere in the ad campaign for his book, will you find his admission that as much as a third of his book was written and researched by others. You just won't find it. Instead, he and others hawking his book (including HBO) have repeatedly asserted that he personally mastered all the details of the case in order to shut down all the conspiracy theories, blah blah blah. Lifton's research proves, if nothing else, that this was false advertising.

I believe one can make the argument that someone willing to misrepresent the nature of a book ( i.e. how it was written) in order to sell more copies, would also be willing to twist its content to mislead its potential audience. Like Spitzer and his hookers, Bugliosi's use of Haines and Myers, and his paying them to keep quiet, raises questions about his integrity. I mean why, if everything was on the up and up, as claimed by Von Pein, would Bugliosi arrange to have them "silenced"?

Mighty mighty peculiar, in my opinion.

*********************************************************

"...Bugliosi's use of Haines and Myers, and his paying them to keep quiet, raises questions about his integrity. I mean why, if everything was on the up and up, as claimed by Von Pein, would Bugliosi arrange to have them "silenced"?"

Exactly, Pat.

"Von Pain," as I've referred to him on Lancer, and in retorting him on amazon.com, is nothing more than a shill, for Bugliosi.

An out and out LN "shill," for Bugliosi.

Edited March 15, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Terry Mauro]

As I've stated publicly, ghostwriting is an honorable profession. Publishers often contract with writers to do the writing for an author who either cannot write, or doesn’t have the time or inclination to write, or for whatever reason. Often, the reason is simply that the author is a busy person, has something he wants to convey, but doesn't have the time it would take to sit down a craft a book. So a writer is hired to do that job. Sometimes the identity of the ghost remains anonymous; in other cases, the book's title reads "by Joe Smith, with Tom Jones."

Bugliosi's involvement in the JFK case goes way back to 1985, and the television program The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, which was originally contracted for by London Weekly Television (and a producer named Mark Redhead). In that program, Bugliosi was prosecuting attorney, and Gerry Spence was defense attorney. Numerous witnesses were flown in from the U.S., and the trial was conducted—before a judge and jury—in accordance with standard legal procedures. After the program was originally aired in London, many hours were later broadcast on Showtime. From that experience, Bugliosi, who thought he knew everything there was to know about the JFK case, set out to write a book. After all, he had met many of the witnesses, he "knew the case" (or so he thought); and he would set the record straight.

Unfortunately, life is not that simple—as Bugliosi soon learned. And despite the time and effort he put in on the JFK case, he has been humbled by the experience. As he himself has admitted, the JFK case "is a bottomless pit." He refers to it a "this terribly long journey" and persons who know him personally have told me he has been humbled by the experience.

Bugliosi states as much in his own acknowledgements, "With every project that we take on in our lives, we intuitively know. . that if we work long and hard enough, we will reach the bottom of the pile. But I found. . that there is no bottom to the pile in the Kennedy case. . it is endless. . " (Reclaiming History, p. 1513).

In short, Bugliosi has not found closure. One problem is that Bugliosi's goal—of refuting every single conspiracy theory (or at least all the principle ones)—was unrealistic and led to an unmanageable research project. Another is that the particular theory to which Bugliosi subscribes—that Oswald was guilty, and acted alone—is simply false. That fact will only be further validated with the passage of time. In short, Vincent Bugliosi—like many honorable reactionaries before him—is on the wrong side of history.

Further, he will not prevail by writing that depends on personal insults (comparing the JFK researchers to bacteria, and the documents they won under FOIA or as a result of the ARRB, as their "oxygen") or by his outsized ego.

But let's return to the issue ghostwriting, because here the issue is not just how the book was written (or "assembled," as the case may be) but the credibility of Mr. Bugliosi, himself.

Just how knowledgeable is he about the JFK case himself—or is he just a blowhard who has strong beliefs, and likes to argue and debate, but used the services of an assortment of experts when it came to the details of the actual writing?

There are various “shades of gray” when it comes to writing about the Kennedy assassination, and how a book about such a complex such as the JFK case is assembled. Let’s explore the situation as it applies to Bugliosi.

* * *

The Kennedy assassination is quite involved, Bugliosi is a busy man and this particular project, which began in 1985, extended forward some 22 years to 2007, before publication. Indeed, Bugliosi's project went through two major periods in its literary evolution—one, when the proposed book was titled Final Verdict, and which came to an ending of sorts around October, 1999; the second, when it was retitled (and expanded) and called Reclaiming History.

Moreover, over the course of some 15 years, there were at least two ghost-writers who played key roles in the creation of the book as finally published, in 2007, under the title Reclaiming History. These two individuals—each who worked as paid "subcontractors" of a sort—are Fred Haines, of Los Angeles, and Dale Myers, the JFK researcher from Livonia, Michigan. Each was a paid ghost-writer, and each had a contract with Bugliosi's New York publisher, W. W. Norton.

These two individuals worked on (i.e., contributed to) the manuscript during distinctly different time periods. In each case, the arrangement called for a shared credit; i.e., the arrangement called for the book—when published—to be "by" Vincent Bugliosi but "with" the other named author.

In the case of Haines, the book's title was FINAL VERDICT, and was to be "by" Bugliosi but "with Fred Haines." In the case of Dale Myers, the book was titled (as it is presently published) as RECLAIMING HISTORY and the author's credit was to read "by" Bugliosi, but "with Dale Myers."

The fact that two separate ghost writers were hired over a period of 15 years—writers with signed contracts who were each remunerated to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars—should put an end to the nonsense that Bugliosi did not utilize ghostwriters. But apparently, there are those who want to believe "no matter what," so I suggest they channel such energies, and such a "will to believe", into theological areas; or perhaps ask Bugliosi to make public the paid contracts that he (and/or his publisher) had with each of these two writers.

As to Bugliosi and the matter of ghostwriting, here is the basic outline of the facts.

* * *

Let's start with Haines, whose arrangement goes back to the 1990s.

Writer Fred Haines—an amiable man and talented intellect—received regular monthly payments from W. W. Norton. (Those who save their old Compuserve posts will find Fred Haines on those boards). Haines' compensation was at the rate of approximately $50,000 per annum. He worked on Bugliosi's project for years—indeed, for the better part of a decade, while Bugliosi immersed himself in other matters (e.g., the O. J. case).

Haines' primary task was to write "the biography" of Oswald—similar to the work that Attorneys Jenner and Liebeler did for the Warren Commission (See Appendix 13 of the Warren Report), only a greatly expanded version of that. As published, Haines contribution comes to 260 pages. ( See page 513 to 788, listed as two chapters in Bugliosi's table of contents).

As just noted, the arrangement with Haines --and it went on for many years--was that the author's credit on the book would read "by Bugliosi," but "with Fred Haines." This was similar to the titling of HELTER SKELTER, which was "by Bugliosi," but "with Kurt Gentry". But those who knew Kurt Gentry knew that he wrote HELTER SKELTER . In setting out to write about the JFK case, Bugliosi was continuing that same pattern of behavior that began back in the days of the Manson case—i.e., "I know all this, but I'm a busy man, too busy to write, so let's hire someone to do the job." So a writer (Fred Haines) was hired, he had a separate contract with the publisher, and was paid monthly by the publisher.

Going now to the matter of JFK researcher Dale Myers, and how he came to be involved, we must first move towards the end of what might be called the "Fred Haines" period, and a significant turning point in the evolution of Bugliosi's work.

* * *

In mid-October 1999—this is now 14 years after the original TV special—Bugliosi turned in a "manuscript" of (what was then called FINAL VERDICT) to W. W. Norton. Unfortunately, there was a serious problem with Bugliosi's 1999 manuscript being published in the form in which it was presented at the time. Bugliosi's manuscript was 3,000 pages long; furthermore, Bugliosi was referring to that submission as "Part 1".

Bugliosi told Norton (this is mid-October, 1999) that this 3000 page manuscript was something that he had worked on it for some ten years (i.e., 1989 – 1999). He said that this manuscript was now "finished" and could be published on its own. He noted that it could be divided into two books. That decision was up to the publisher. He said that as far as he was concerned, what he had just submitted was just "the first part of it", but that, if Norton wanted to go forward with a Part 2 "which involved critiquing in some detail all the different conspiracy theories") why then a new arrangement would have to be negotiated.

Bugliosi's position, in short, was that he had now (circa, 1999) fulfilled his contract. He had arrived at a plateau of sorts; and what had been his experience starting with London Weekly Television, back in 1985, and the role he had played in that TV special, had now morphed into this manuscript, circa 1999.

As we now know, the publisher did NOT publish Bugliosi's 1999 3,000 page submission, then titled "Final Verdict", with the credit then reading by Buglioi and "with Fred Haines."

So the work now continued. As the summer of 2001 approached, both Bugliosi and Fred Haines both had contracts with Norton, and Haines was receiving payments at least through that time. But not too long afterwards, Haines had to leave the project because of medical problems. So a "parting of the ways" was arranged, and now Bugliosi was on his own, and he cast about for further editorial assistance.

Bugliosi needed assistance because (1) his work was not really complete, in accordance with his grand design of criticizing all the conspiracy theories; and (2) everything was now complicated by the work of the ARRB between 1995 and 1998, and the attendant release of a huge amount of archival material. Some of this "new material" was released starting around 1994, but then much more followed, in the way of depositions, additional documents, and internal memos, after the ARRB shut down on 9/30/98.

So now, before proceeding with what happened next in connection with Bugliosi's project, let's take a small side trip on how the ARRB's work impacted on the JFK case in general, and, in particular, Bugliosi's writing project (and the subsequent entry of "Ghostwriter #2").

SIDETRIP: 1998: About the ARRB and the document releases

One cannot overestimate the importance of the (1992) JFK Records Act, or the work of the ARRB (1995-1998) on the history of this case. Nor can one overstate the effect the release of millions of pages –in late 1998. In addition, there was the advent of the Internet –with the first browsers, etc., circa 1995—and the matter of hundreds of thousands of pages coming "on line" (e.g., at Mary Ferrell dot org, or in various university collections, and even at the National Archives). In other words, not only did the JFK Records Act change everything, so did the advent of the "information superhighway."

Indeed, Bugliosi was not immune from the effect of this torrent of information. But, unfortunately, he was particularly ill-equipped to handle this torrent of data, because he is (or at least was) not computer literate, and worked with pencil and paper and dictating machine. Moreover, he did not use the Internet. So Bugliosi was like a man on a bicycle, while cars were whizzing by on the freeway. He was constantly having to write the National Archives for information, didn't know how to use a search engine, and I can only wonder when he first learned what a pdf file was.

But now, back to the ARRB and the problem(s) it presented.

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, who was Chief Analyst for Military Records" on the staff of the ARRB; and played a major role in handling numerous matters pertaining to the medical evidence and the Zapruder film. To put it mildly, Bugliosi, who adopts the manner of someone who knows everything about the JFK case, now had to face the fact that the record was loaded with material, in the medical area—in the form of depositions and staff memos—that was supportive of Best Evidence. And lest there be any question about Doug Horne's conclusions about Best Evidence, here is what he has publicly posted:

QUOTE FROM DOUG HORNE (as posted on Education Forum):

David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.)

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 his personal attack on Doug Horne, who he calls "insane" about four times; and a completely ridiculous and superficial chapter on my own work. But let's not go there--at least, not in this post. The fact is that, when cornered, Bugliosi behaves like a name-calling street bully, but let's return to the primary issue at hand, the matter of the ghostwriting—i.e., the issue of the employment of paid writers by his publisher, who rendered major assistance to Bugliosi over the course of some 10 years (at least).

BUGLIOSI AND GHOSTWRITING (contd.)

As previously stated, first paid ghostwriter was Fred Haines. Haines' arrangement with Bugliosi—which went back many years to the 1990s (at least)— involved an arrangement in which he would write the "Oswald biography" of FINAL VERDICT (which was then the title) –the book to be published with the author's credit reading "by" Vincent Bugliosi, but "with Fred Haines."

With the 1998 ARRB releases, and the advent of the Internet, Bugliosi needed assistance to complete his project. This brings us to the second phase.

ENTER Ghostwriter #2 –DALE MYERS

Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) hired another writer--this time, one with expertise in the area of the shots, the medical evidence, and the acoustics. Dale Myers—the JFK researcher who appeared with Bugliosi on a Discovery Channel documentary—was solicited, and agreed. Once again, as was the case with Haines, a formal contract was drawn up. Furthermore, it was agreed that the credit for the book would now read "by Vincent Bugliosi," but "with Dale Myers."

Unfortunately for Bugliosi (and perhaps because both of these fellows have outsized egos), the collaboration between Dale Myers and Bugliosi didn't work out. Consequently, and similar to a marriage that doesn't work, a "literary divorce" now had to be arranged (i.e., another contract had to be drawn up—this one spelling out the terms of their "separation.) One of the provisions of this second contract was that Myers agreed that he would never divulge the existence of the original arrangement, or its dissolution. In other words, Myers is bound by contract not to talk about the writing he did for Bugliosi, what he contributed, how much he was paid for his contribution, or the circumstances of their "divorce."

Consequently, Dale Myers has TWO contracts with publisher W. W. Norton:

--the first, when his writing deal was originally formalized, and the book was to be published with the authorial credit reading by Vincent Bugliosi "with Dale Myers";

-- the second, when their collaboration didn't work as planned and their separation had to be formalized.

So now, addressing the issue of ghostwriting and counting up the signed contracts for ghostwriting, here's where we stand: there's one (and probably two) with Fred Haines (one for the original arrangement, and one for the separation); similarly, there were two contracts with Dale Myers—one for the original arrangement, the second for the "literary divorce."

These contracts span a total of about 15 years, and account for a significant amount of the writing that appears in the published work—irrespective of how hard Bugliosi worked on the project, or how much of the work represents his own writing—i.e., his own "original writing."

OK, then, so much for Bugliosi and his utilization of paid ghost-writers. Now lets turn to the actual contributions of each paid ghost-writer.

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE TWO GHOSTS—An Attempt at Quantification

Fred Haines wrote the entire section on Oswald—i.e., the "Lee Oswald biography," such as it appears in Bugliosi's book. That section –from page 513 to 788—is about 260 pages. In a way, it’s a "mini-book" enclosed within the larger work.

Dale Myers wrote the original drafts of material on Dealey Plaza, the acoustics, etc. As to the size of the written contributions of these two individuals, we can consult Bugliosi's own acknowledgements, so lets now do just that, plug in some numbers and "do the math":

From Bugliosi's own acknowledgements section (Reclaiming History, pp. 1514-1515), is the acknowledgement Bugliosi gives Dale Myers:

Dale helped me in the writing of several sections of Book One, most notably on acoustic, "Four Days in November" (particularly in the Oswald interrogations), and all matters dealing with still photography).

This statement is particularly significant, because Bugliosi, in the acknowledgements, compares the size of the Myers contribution to that of Fred Haines (his other acknowledged ghostwriter, and the one who wrote the Oswald biography, which is 260 pages in length, as published). Importantly, Bugliosi makes clear that Myers' contribution was larger. Specifically, Bugliosi compares his (Haines') contribution to Myers, as follows:

the other person who played a writing role, though a smaller one, was Fred Haines (Bugliosi, p. 1515).

". . . a smaller one. . . "??

To get some sense of what is going on here, quantitatively speaking: we know that the Oswald biography--"Lee Harvey Oswald", which extends from page 513 to 788—is about 260 pages. Since Haines 260 pages is referred to by Bugliosi (again, who compares it to Myers, in size) as being "the smaller one," it seems reasonable to assume that Myers' contribution was considerably larger than 260 pages.

But note: even if the two contributions were of equal size, that would mean (based on Bugliosi's own admissions, in his acknowledgements) a total of 520 pp (260 plus 260) was written by these two paid ghosts. In other words, at least 520 pages of this book—i.e., at least one-third of a book whose main text (including the "Epilogue") runs to page number 1510—was written by two paid ghosts, each of whom had signed contracts with Bugliosi's publisher, W. W. Norton.

As to what changes were made by Bugliosi in the material submitted, I can only state that Dale Myers, upon first receiving a copy of the book and examining it, told a third party (with regards to the material he provided): "Well, that's just about exactly as I wrote it!"

But now, for a second look as to the actual amount of ghostwriting involved, let's return (again) to the number's, and "do the math"—this time, with a closer look at the area of Dale Myer's contribution. (Dale Myers, remember, is the fellow forbidden to talk about any of this, under the terms of the second contract he has with Norton, i.e., the one that is akin to a "literary divorce.")

Bulgiosi's opening chapter—"Four Days in November"—is just under 320 pages (it extends from page 3 to page 319). The section on acoustics, in the end notes, runs about 25 pages. Adding these together, that brings us to a sum of about 350 pages (for Dale Myers), but that is only the beginning—because, as Bugliosi himself said, Myers contribution extended beyond "Four Days in November" to "all matters dealing with still photography."

So, (and just estimating here), if we were to add another 50 pages (at least) for all that material (i.e., "all matters dealing with still photography"—Bugliosi's own words), we are up to a Dale Myers contribution of about 400 pages. Adding that to Haines' 260, that would bring us to a total of 660 pages of a book whose main text ends at page 1510. So by this analysis, (which admittedly involves some reasonable estimates) we come to numbers suggesting that "one-third" is conservative, and that in fact almost half of Bugliosi's book (at least) was written, for the most part, by these two paid ghostwriters.

But even that doesn't put an end to the subject of ghostwriting, because there are any number of other areas of the book where Bugliosi may well have received major outside assistance. Remember: Bugliosi didn't use the Internet, or even a computer, which is another factor that suggests he received plenty of outside assistance, at a time when a flood of information was being released, and Bugliosi was writing with pencil and paper, and didn't even know how to use the net. So, in view of all this, I believe that the basic thrust of what I previously wrote about this issue of Bugliosi and his use of ghostwriters (see my Internet essay, "Ghostwriters in the Sky", posted on the Education Forum) is quite correct. I believe that at least half the book—if not more—is ghostwritten.

BUGLIOSI AND THE MATTER OF "inserts"

Bugliosi himself gives the game away when he writes, in his acknowledgements (see p. 1514), that his book is "a book of inserts."):

Though resulting from much dictation, the book you have read is, much more than dictation, a book of inserts. By that I mean the first drafts of sections I wrote (e.g., Zapruder film, wounds to the president, CIA, Oliver Stone, etc.) which I then dictated, were not overly long. But they all increased far beyond their original size in the many subsequent drafts with the addition of yellow-page inserts

I know of no other writer who talks of "his" work in that way; and the language the author himself uses certainly suggests a major collaborative effort, with a number of third parties.

In fact, Dale Myers has told confidants that the "original" Bugliosi sections—as he received them—were "a complete mess" and "terrible" and in need of thorough rewriting and revision.

Again, I repeat: ghostwriting is an honorable profession. There is nothing wrong with it, per se. In writing Helter Skelter, Vincent 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.

But no one else's name is on the cover of RECLAIMING HISTORY, and that is part of the problem. This is especially important if one-third to one half of the manuscript was originally written by third parties, regardless of whether or not Bugliosi thoroughly endorses their ideas, or made minor editorial revisions (which, in Bugliosi's case, often appear in the form of nasty insults and ad hominem personal attacks).

Which brings us back to the primary issue at hand—the matter of ghostwriting.

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."

The problem with RECLAIMING HISTORY is that Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) has tried to minimize the extent of the writing assistance he received and present this as entirely his own work. Unlike the case of HELTER SKELTER, where Kurt Gentry's name appears on the cover of the book, in this instance, Bugliosi has followed a different path. Consequently, most of Bugliosi's defenders are unaware of the true situation. They see a 1600 page book with a wide variety of data, a lot of it quite technical, and think that Bugliosi (who wasn’t even experienced enough to use the Internet, much less a computer Word processing program, when it came to the writing) wrote it all himself. The fact is that, in several critical areas, these two paid ghostwriters did the heavy lifting; and, in at least those areas, Bugliosi functioned more or less as "managing editor.”

In no way do I mean to state or imply that Bugliosi did not work very hard on this project—indeed, for years on end--only that he didn’t do it all by himself.

That's why Doug Horne refers to this work as "Bugliosi by Committee." It is why I have referred to this book as a "glorified anthology" (with everything switched to the first person) and something that should perhaps have been titled Helter Smelter.

*********************************************************

Thanks for posting this, DL.

You always make me proud to know you, Bunky.

Love,

Ter

[Gil Jesus]

"Von Pain," as I've referred to him on Lancer, and in retorting him on amazon.com, is nothing more than a shill, for Bugliosi.

An out and out LN "shill," for Bugliosi.

Von Pinhead was hawking Bugliosi's book a year before it was published on various forums on the web.

He is a subscriber of the official version and like Bugliosi, refers to and considers anyone who disagrees with him a "kook", often referring to them as "Mr. Kook". Not only is Von Pein in complete denial even when presented with evidence of a conspiracy, he has suffered the misfortune of being thrown off reputable forums like JFK Lancer. In newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk, one can see that a typical Von Pein post may include links to previous Von Pein posts. In other words, he posts opinion, then uses it as a factual reference in a later post. I've never seen anything so ridiculous: using oneself as a source.

Of course, when you have nothing else, I suppose, you dock at any port in a storm.

In Von Pein's world, there is no such thing as tampering with evidence. There is no such thing as altering affidavits. There is no such thing as evidence substitution. There is no such thing as staged police lineups. There is no such thing as coerced witnesses.

In Von Pein's world, 80 % or more of the public, who believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, are simply "kooks".

For Von Pein's sake, I hope Bugliosi doesn't stop short one day.

[Brian Smith]

"Von Pain," as I've referred to him on Lancer, and in retorting him on amazon.com, is nothing more than a shill, for Bugliosi.

An out and out LN "shill," for Bugliosi.

Von Pinhead was hawking Bugliosi's book a year before it was published on various forums on the web.

He is a subscriber of the official version and like Bugliosi, refers to and considers anyone who disagrees with him a "kook", often referring to them as "Mr. Kook". Not only is Von Pein in complete denial even when presented with evidence of a conspiracy, he has suffered the misfortune of being thrown off reputable forums like JFK Lancer. In newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk, one can see that a typical Von Pein post may include links to previous Von Pein posts. In other words, he posts opinion, then uses it as a factual reference in a later post. I've never seen anything so ridiculous: using oneself as a source.

Of course, when you have nothing else, I suppose, you dock at any port in a storm.

In Von Pein's world, there is no such thing as tampering with evidence. There is no such thing as altering affidavits. There is no such thing as evidence substitution. There is no such thing as staged police lineups. There is no such thing as coerced witnesses.

In Von Pein's world, 80 % or more of the public, who believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, are simply "kooks".

For Von Pein's sake, I hope Bugliosi doesn't stop short one day.

I've been following the antics of the lone nut shills over at the alt.conspiracy.jfk site for several months now. Do Von Pein and those other people really think they are fooling anybody? Anyone who has to hurl insults, in lieu of actual fact based arguments, has already lost the debate. I haven't read Bugliosi's book, and don't intend to (no need to waste my time on a book arguing the thesis that the world is flat) but from what I have heard, he stoops to the same level of name calling that the lone nut internet forum brigade engages in as a regular routine. At this late date, with all the new revelations from the ARRB added on to what was previously known, anyone seriously arguing the Warren Commission line is either in a severe state of denial, or is a paid shill of the establishment. Pathetic.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Brian Smith

[Gil Jesus]

"Von Pain," as I've referred to him on Lancer, and in retorting him on amazon.com, is nothing more than a shill, for Bugliosi.

An out and out LN "shill," for Bugliosi.

Von Pinhead was hawking Bugliosi's book a year before it was published on various forums on the web.

He is a subscriber of the official version and like Bugliosi, refers to and considers anyone who disagrees with him a "kook", often referring to them as "Mr. Kook". Not only is Von Pein in complete denial even when presented with evidence of a conspiracy, he has suffered the misfortune of being thrown off reputable forums like JFK Lancer. In newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk, one can see that a typical Von Pein post may include links to previous Von Pein posts. In other words, he posts opinion, then uses it as a factual reference in a later post. I've never seen anything so ridiculous: using oneself as a source.

Of course, when you have nothing else, I suppose, you dock at any port in a storm.

In Von Pein's world, there is no such thing as tampering with evidence. There is no such thing as altering affidavits. There is no such thing as evidence substitution. There is no such thing as staged police lineups. There is no such thing as coerced witnesses.

In Von Pein's world, 80 % or more of the public, who believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, are simply "kooks".

For Von Pein's sake, I hope Bugliosi doesn't stop short one day.

I've been following the antics of the lone nut shills over at the alt.conspiracy.jfk site for several months now. Do Von Pein and those other people really think they are fooling anybody? Anyone who has to hurl insults, in lieu of actual fact based arguments, has already lost the debate. I haven't read Bugliosi's book, and don't intend to (no need to waste my time on a book arguing the thesis that the world is flat) but from what I have heard, he stoops to the same level of name calling that the lone nut internet forum brigade engages in as a regular routine. At this late date, with all the new revelations from the ARRB added on to what was previously known, anyone seriously arguing the Warren Commission line is either in a severe state of denial, or is a paid shill of the establishment. Pathetic.

Brian:

I, like you, have not bought nor read Bugliosi's "cinder block" book. And I also have no intention of doing so. I have the WC 26 volumes on CD-ROM and I've read Case Closed (then threw it in the trash), so for me, the-same-old-same-old is just a waste of time and money.

The purpose of the childishness of the McAdams-sent trolls at a.c.j. is to distract the discussion away from evidence and testimony and away from exposure of the truth by using off-topic postings that have nothing to do with the JFK assassination but instead serve to sidetrack everyone.

As you know, more often than not, the ones who hurl the first insults are those on the LN side. Many times, Cters (myself included) fall for their tactics and retaliate. But I'm learning not to fall into their trap.

Trolls don't care about the case. They just care about being a-holes to whomever. Many don't like the Kennedys. Many more don't like people who believe in conspiracies.

So this case draws quite a few "nut jobs" from all over the map. Some of whom wish to please their master, who has vowed to destroy a.c.j.

http://www.prouty.org/mcadams

I find it funny that those who ridicule conspiracies are, in fact, part of a conspiracy to destroy a newsgroup.

[Gil Jesus]

Mr. Lifton:

Thank You for that posting and thank you for BEST EVIDENCE. Your work helped open my eyes and convinced me that the autopsy photos did NOT represent the President's wounds as seen by witnesses.

I am totally convinced that Kennedy's body did not ride back to Washington aboard AF-1 and that it went first to Walter Reed to have the bullets removed before it was helicoptered over to Bethesda.

Again, thank you for your contribution to the search for truth and justice.

Sncerely, Gil Jesus

[Brian Smith]

"Von Pain," as I've referred to him on Lancer, and in retorting him on amazon.com, is nothing more than a shill, for Bugliosi.

An out and out LN "shill," for Bugliosi.

Von Pinhead was hawking Bugliosi's book a year before it was published on various forums on the web.

He is a subscriber of the official version and like Bugliosi, refers to and considers anyone who disagrees with him a "kook", often referring to them as "Mr. Kook". Not only is Von Pein in complete denial even when presented with evidence of a conspiracy, he has suffered the misfortune of being thrown off reputable forums like JFK Lancer. In newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk, one can see that a typical Von Pein post may include links to previous Von Pein posts. In other words, he posts opinion, then uses it as a factual reference in a later post. I've never seen anything so ridiculous: using oneself as a source.

Of course, when you have nothing else, I suppose, you dock at any port in a storm.

In Von Pein's world, there is no such thing as tampering with evidence. There is no such thing as altering affidavits. There is no such thing as evidence substitution. There is no such thing as staged police lineups. There is no such thing as coerced witnesses.

In Von Pein's world, 80 % or more of the public, who believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, are simply "kooks".

For Von Pein's sake, I hope Bugliosi doesn't stop short one day.

I've been following the antics of the lone nut shills over at the alt.conspiracy.jfk site for several months now. Do Von Pein and those other people really think they are fooling anybody? Anyone who has to hurl insults, in lieu of actual fact based arguments, has already lost the debate. I haven't read Bugliosi's book, and don't intend to (no need to waste my time on a book arguing the thesis that the world is flat) but from what I have heard, he stoops to the same level of name calling that the lone nut internet forum brigade engages in as a regular routine. At this late date, with all the new revelations from the ARRB added on to what was previously known, anyone seriously arguing the Warren Commission line is either in a severe state of denial, or is a paid shill of the establishment. Pathetic.

Brian:

I, like you, have not bought nor read Bugliosi's "cinder block" book. And I also have no intention of doing so. I have the WC 26 volumes on CD-ROM and I've read Case Closed (then threw it in the trash), so for me, the-same-old-same-old is just a waste of time and money.

The purpose of the childishness of the McAdams-sent trolls at a.c.j. is to distract the discussion away from evidence and testimony and away from exposure of the truth by using off-topic postings that have nothing to do with the JFK assassination but instead serve to sidetrack everyone.

As you know, more often than not, the ones who hurl the first insults are those on the LN side. Many times, Cters (myself included) fall for their tactics and retaliate. But I'm learning not to fall into their trap.

Trolls don't care about the case. They just care about being a-holes to whomever. Many don't like the Kennedys. Many more don't like people who believe in conspiracies.

So this case draws quite a few "nut jobs" from all over the map. Some of whom wish to please their master, who has vowed to destroy a.c.j.

http://www.prouty.org/mcadams

I find it funny that those who ridicule conspiracies are, in fact, part of a conspiracy to destroy a newsgroup.

Yes, they are bad characters. I've seen them on every single internet forum where the JFK conspiracy is being discussed. Von Pein got kicked off the JFK Lancer forum with some other lone nut stooge allegedly named "Nick Kendrick" a couple of years ago for engaging in xxxxx tactics. They now hang out on the Internet Movie Data Base forum for the JFK movie. It's amusing to watch them post with all these different sock puppet accounts. Apparently they can't get enough real converts to their side, so they have to create phony supporters on other accounts. I don't even bother posting on there anymore, but pop n every now and again to see what they're up to. They just keep repeating the same bull over and over again. It's almost as if someone (McAdams?) is training them in sophisticated disinfo tactics. Anyway, I am delighted that Bugliosi's book tanked. The American public as a whole is not dumb enough to be fooled by such a ploy, or maybe I should say that anyone dumb enough to be taken in by the Warren Commission official story isn't likely to be an inveterate reader anyway. Anyone naive enough to believe it isn't even likely to read an entire one of their ridiculous posts either. They are clearly wasting their time, just like Bugliosi did, even though he got his paycheck for his efforts.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Brian Smith

[David G. Healy]

"Von Pain," as I've referred to him on Lancer, and in retorting him on amazon.com, is nothing more than a shill, for Bugliosi.

An out and out LN "shill," for Bugliosi.

Von Pinhead was hawking Bugliosi's book a year before it was published on various forums on the web.

He is a subscriber of the official version and like Bugliosi, refers to and considers anyone who disagrees with him a "kook", often referring to them as "Mr. Kook". Not only is Von Pein in complete denial even when presented with evidence of a conspiracy, he has suffered the misfortune of being thrown off reputable forums like JFK Lancer. In newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk, one can see that a typical Von Pein post may include links to previous Von Pein posts. In other words, he posts opinion, then uses it as a factual reference in a later post. I've never seen anything so ridiculous: using oneself as a source.

Of course, when you have nothing else, I suppose, you dock at any port in a storm.

In Von Pein's world, there is no such thing as tampering with evidence. There is no such thing as altering affidavits. There is no such thing as evidence substitution. There is no such thing as staged police lineups. There is no such thing as coerced witnesses.

In Von Pein's world, 80 % or more of the public, who believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, are simply "kooks".

For Von Pein's sake, I hope Bugliosi doesn't stop short one day.

I've been following the antics of the lone nut shills over at the alt.conspiracy.jfk site for several months now. Do Von Pein and those other people really think they are fooling anybody? Anyone who has to hurl insults, in lieu of actual fact based arguments, has already lost the debate. I haven't read Bugliosi's book, and don't intend to (no need to waste my time on a book arguing the thesis that the world is flat) but from what I have heard, he stoops to the same level of name calling that the lone nut internet forum brigade engages in as a regular routine. At this late date, with all the new revelations from the ARRB added on to what was previously known, anyone seriously arguing the Warren Commission line is either in a severe state of denial, or is a paid shill of the establishment. Pathetic.

Brian:

I, like you, have not bought nor read Bugliosi's "cinder block" book. And I also have no intention of doing so. I have the WC 26 volumes on CD-ROM and I've read Case Closed (then threw it in the trash), so for me, the-same-old-same-old is just a waste of time and money.

The purpose of the childishness of the McAdams-sent trolls at a.c.j. is to distract the discussion away from evidence and testimony and away from exposure of the truth by using off-topic postings that have nothing to do with the JFK assassination but instead serve to sidetrack everyone.

As you know, more often than not, the ones who hurl the first insults are those on the LN side. Many times, Cters (myself included) fall for their tactics and retaliate. But I'm learning not to fall into their trap.

Trolls don't care about the case. They just care about being a-holes to whomever. Many don't like the Kennedys. Many more don't like people who believe in conspiracies.

So this case draws quite a few "nut jobs" from all over the map. Some of whom wish to please their master, who has vowed to destroy a.c.j.

http://www.prouty.org/mcadams

I find it funny that those who ridicule conspiracies are, in fact, part of a conspiracy to destroy a newsgroup.

Yes, they are bad characters. I've seen them on every single internet forum where the JFK conspiracy is being discussed. Von Pein got kicked off the JFK Lancer forum with some other lone nut stooge allegedly named "Nick Kendrick" a couple of years ago for engaging in xxxxx tactics. They now hang out on the Internet Movie Data Base forum for the JFK movie. It's amusing to watch them post with all these different sock puppet accounts. Apparently they can't get enough real converts to their side, so they have to create phony supporters on other accounts. I don't even bother posting on there anymore, but pop n every now and again to see what they're up to. They just keep repeating the same bull over and over again. It's almost as if someone (McAdams?) is training them in sophisticated disinfo tactics. Anyway, I am delighted that Bugliosi's book tanked. The American public as a whole is not dumb enough to be fooled by such a ploy, or maybe I should say that anyone dumb enough to be taken in by the Warren Commission official story isn't likely to be an inveterate reader anyway. Anyone naive enough to believe it isn't even likely to read an entire one of their ridiculous posts either. They are clearly wasting their time, just like Bugliosi did, even though he got his paycheck for his efforts.

BINGO....

[Duke Lane]

... I, like you, have not bought nor read Bugliosi's "cinder block" book. And I also have no intention of doing so. I have the WC 26 volumes on CD-ROM and I've read Case Closed (then threw it in the trash), so for me, the-same-old-same-old is just a waste of time and money.

I only got it when Half Price Books did, and then only because I got a gift certificate for Christmas, but I haven't cracked it yet.

One thing that's often true, however, is that even books that don't agree with one's own viewpoint can contain some interesting and sometimes useful information. What the author does with that information, how he uses it, may be a different story. Sometimes, they don't even realize what they'd written.

Take With Malice, for example. I'm not going to go look it up, but at the beginning of one chapter, Dale Myers quotes a uniformed police officer who was in the interrogation room with Oswald after they got back to DPD HQ, said officer (C.T. Walker, if memory serves) saying that he was in the room with Oswald "and I had his gun."

The quote is from Walker's WC testimony, so it's not a secret, but it's also not very well known. That Myers quoted it actually astounded me; that he ignored it was not particularly surprising; that he didn't realize what he'd said, however, simply floors me. How he could have acknowledged the existence of that quote without acknowledging its implications is ... well, either incredibly naive or stupid, or completely disingenuous.

See, the fact is that Walker (or whomever; I'm not going to look that up either) couldn't have had Oswald's gun in the interrogation room because it was busy being initialed by Nick McDonald and others on a different floor, and never otherwise apparently came into Walker's possession. The actual chain of possession - as fatally flawed as it is - of the gun in the theater is documentable. It did not include Walker.

Yet Myers effectively admitted, by his inclusion of this snippet of testimony in his book, that there actually were two handguns attributable (in effect) to Lee Oswald in DPD HQ that afternoon. And if there were two pistols, we have a serious problem. Myers chose to expose it and then ignore it. Assuming, that is, that he even realized what he'd said.

... I am delighted that Bugliosi's book tanked. The American public as a whole is not dumb enough to be fooled by such a ploy, or maybe I should say that anyone dumb enough to be taken in by the Warren Commission official story isn't likely to be an inveterate reader anyway. Anyone naive enough to believe it isn't even likely to read an entire one of their ridiculous posts either. They are clearly wasting their time, just like Bugliosi did, even though he got his paycheck for his efforts.

Personally, I suspect that the reason it "tanked" is simply because it's so huge and expensive. Who but the most dedicated will spend fifty bucks on a topic that, at best, is only of passing interest to them? Those who subscribe to the single gunman theory already know "Oswald did it," so why would they need to spend that kind of money to learn what they already know? And those who don't subscribe to it ... well, why spend that kind of money just to raise their blood pressure?

Maybe at $7.50, it stands a chance. It's quite a bargain at that price, cheaper even than the raw materials that went into it!

The real "value" of Reclaiming History is that it's big, it's by a well-known (if not quite famous) person, and it endorses the conclusion that, really, most people would like to believe is the truth ... for to believe otherwise is to make for sleepless nights. Thus, if famous prosecutor Vince Bugliosi believes it and wrote so much about it (and charged so much for it!), then it must be true.