Vince Palamara now believes Oswald did it

[Brian Smith]

Another curious thing is that Palamara originally said, in his online version of "Survivor's Guilt," that he actually believed Oswald had shot Tippit. However, in an earlier post on this forum, while giving a pretty kind review to Bugliosi's book, he mentioned that Bugliosi had convinced him that Oswald shot Tippit. How could that be, if he already allegedly believed that?

One thing about that early review here- Palamara was clearly impressed with the way Bugliosi seemed to single his work out for commendation. Palamara's ego was definitely massaged by this treatment, as is evident in the way he fondly quoted each reference to him in Bugliosi's book.

Palamara's work on the Secret Service was very important, and will remain a great resource for researchers. That said, I have lost all respect for him with his "conversion."

I would like to know how he was suddenly struck, like the Apostle Paul, with this revelation of Oswald doing it all alone. Point by point - what made him all the sudden "see the light?" I'm sure it will be the same timeworn lone nutter rationale: "So much evidence points to Oswald that he must have done it; How could all those people be involved in something like that and no one spilling the beans; It is not logical to believe in this conspiracy; The lone gunman explanation is the most logical; Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation......and so on and so forth. What other reasons could he have for changing his mind? What facts did Bugliosi present in his book, that we don't already know about, that caused this dramatic conversion?

Edited May 24, 2008 by Brian Smith

[Brian Smith]

I would like to know how he was suddenly struck, like the Apostle Paul, with this revelation of Oswald doing it all alone. Point by point - what made him all the sudden "see the light?"

Money? Threats? Brain Tumor? Alzheimers? 'Sleeper' Mockingbird Traitor?.....no logic of the case would change any-one's mind from against the official mythology, to for it!

I don't want to cast aspersions on the man, but it does seem a bit fishy to be completely honest. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but I think it is necessary to back up those beliefs with some substance. Nowhere in his You Tube video does he state what specific facts caused him to change his mind. Maybe Bugliosi does indeed offer some revelatory information that was previously unknown to doubters of the lone gunman theory. If so, what are these facts?

[Pat Speer]

I would like to know how he was suddenly struck, like the Apostle Paul, with this revelation of Oswald doing it all alone. Point by point - what made him all the sudden "see the light?"

Money? Threats? Brain Tumor? Alzheimers? 'Sleeper' Mockingbird Traitor?.....no logic of the case would change any-one's mind from against the official mythology, to for it!

I don't want to cast aspersions on the man, but it does seem a bit fishy to be completely honest. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but I think it is necessary to back up those beliefs with some substance. Nowhere in his You Tube video does he state what specific facts caused him to change his mind. Maybe Bugliosi does indeed offer some revelatory information that was previously unknown to doubters of the lone gunman theory. If so, what are these facts?

Bugliosi's book is EXTREMELY long on arguments, and incredibly short on facts. For example, he spends hundreds of pages bragging about how he tells both sides of every argument, and then never gets around to telling his readers that two of the three men to see a sniper fire a shot from the sixth floor--Amos Euins and James Worrell--testified to hearing four shots. In his book and on his publicity tour he repeatedly attacked Oliver Stone for failing to list the evidence against Oswald--which had nothing to do with Stone's movie, seeing as its premise was that this evidence was faked or misrepresented--and yet Bugliosi, in 2600 pages of evidence and discussion of evidence, in a book purportedly telling its readers the WHOLE TRUTH, never lets on that Charles Givens' testimony about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor just before noon was incredibly SMELLY. His hypocrisy is unbelievable. Givens had less credibility than most of Garrison's witnesses, and yet the Warren Commission are heroes for believing him, while Garrison is a villain for believing his witnesses.

That Palamara can't see this suggests that he spent so much time working on his own areas of interest--the Secret Service and the medical evidence--that he never got around to learning the basics of the case. I suspect he'd swing back after reading Rush to Judgment, the Whitewash series, and Accessories After the Fact. I suspect, as well, that, now satisfied that any further reading is a waste of time, he'll skip on down the road, feeling that this horrible trip down the rabbit hole was just a temporary detour.

[Duke Lane]

... My local Borders is selling Bugliosi's great masterpiece at TEN DOLLARS a pop. In a free and fair country, with a free and fair market, the true value of any given thing is eventually determined. ...

Damn, and here I thought I'd done well by getting it for $25 from Half Price Books ... with a gift card given to me as a present!

Either [Vince Palamara] has some sort of emotional crisis or is in desperate need of money. ...

Well, nobody said there was a ton of money in conspiracy books (possible notable exceptions Best Evidence and Marrs' book)!

... And nobody ever said there was NO money in anti-conspiracy books (e.g., Case Closed).

Nail ... head ... wham!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

That Palamara can't see this suggests that he spent so much time working on his own areas of interest--the Secret Service and the medical evidence--that he never got around to learning the basics of the case.

That sounds exactly right. Vince is a victim of his own over-specialization.

[William Kelly]

Five Reasons Why Bugliosi Gets the JFK Assassintation Wrong.

Strategic Mistakes of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History (W.W. Norton, 2007)

Even if most of the facts in Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" are correct, he makes a number of strategic mistakes that invalidate his claim that President Kennedy was the victim of a lone-nut assassin and not a conspiracy.

For starters, the Dallas murder of the President is not yet totally in the realm of history, but is technically considered an unsolved cold case homicide that requires a periodic review to determine if there is any new evidence, previously unknown witnesses or recently developed scientific tool can help lead to a legal resolution of the case.

1) Not yet history, but unsolved cold case homicide,

2) He attempts to give LHO, his lone assassin a motive, and fails to present his suspect in a true light – as a covert operator.

Even if JFK was killed by one gunman alone, if that gunman is Lee Harvey Oswald, as Bugliosi insists, then it most certainly was not only a conspiracy but a more specific covert intelligence operation because Oswald, the former Civil Air Patrol, USMC, U2 radar operator, Russian defector, Fair Play for Cuba Committee activists, Mexico City double-agent and undercover infiltrator, sets the mold for the covert operative personality profile.

If Oswald was involved in the assassination in any way, what happened at Dealey Plaza was a well-planned and excellently executed covert operation and ambush.

But instead of recognizing these attributes, at only 24 years old, those who claim Oswald killed Kennedy also insist he is a penultimate, leftist, wifebeating, psycho loser whose success at killing the President was an accident of history.

Bugliosi's mistake is not identifying the evidence that Oswald committed the crime, but in attempting to apply a motive to Oswald's actions, something the Warren Commission didn't even try to do.

So if the Covert Operative Profile is applied to his chief suspect Oswald, as surely it must, then all the evidence Bugliosi assembles to prove Oswald's guilt, also prove the covert operational conspiracy.

3) Rather than follow the evidence wherever it leads, as a good investigator would, he adopts all the bad habits he accuses "conspiracy theorists" of using to promote their own agendas.

In addition, rather than follow the basic principals of investigative techniques, keeping an open mind and taking the evidence where ever it leads, Bugliosi wears blinders in following the blatant and prearranged trail to the assassin's perch and the patsy Oswald, ignoring a multitude of evidence that leads to other conspirators, even at the scene of the crime.

As all law enforcement people know, a good prosecutor can convict almost anyone, and after trying to nail down Oswald in his coffin, Bugliosi takes on those "desperate and tenacious" souls (as Joseph Rosenbloom calls them), independent researchers who have, over the years, compiled the evidence and facts necessary to actually solve the case.

4) He places all "conspiracy theorists" in one basket, despite the fact that they can't even agree among themselves.

Bugliosi's strategic mistake on their part is to cast them all – said to be 80% of the citizens of the country, into one big group he repeatedly, unnecessarily and contemptiously calls "conspiracy theorists."

Although he doesn't use the term Lone-Nutter to describe his own sociological classification, everyone else is a "conspiracy theorists," and he can't use the word enough.

Tony Summers, apparently one of Bugliosi's most serious antagonists, isn't a "rigorous investigative journalist," as most others refer to him, to Bugliosi he's "conspiracy theorist Tony Summers," repeating over and over so it is drummed into the reader's mind. Not once, not twice or even three times, but over a dozen references to Summers continually reminds us that Tony Summers is a "conspiracy theorists, even though, as Bugliosi reluctantly points out, Summers' doesn't subscribe to any particular theory or blame anyone or group for the assassination.

Bugliosi's continual use of the term undermines the fact that most conspiracy theorists don't agree with each other, and often and frequently argue with one another, not only about the facts of the case and who was ultimately responsible, but also about each other.

Bugliosi assertion that there is even a "community" of "conspiracy theorists," is also certifiably false, as if they all live happy together in some commune, when in fact no such "community" of conspiracy theorists exists.

In addition, he has harsh words for the bane of most conspiracy theorists, Gerald Posner, of whom he accuses of using the same techniques and then puts him together with the CT's – "Posner and the Conspiracy Theorists," which sounds like a bad punk band.

Of course Posner uses the same bad research techniques Bugliosi and many conspiracy theorists use, but Bugliosi's attempt to put 80% of those interested in the case into the same big pot fails to understand their individual and diverse nature. His continuous disparaging remarks about his so-called "community of conspiracy theorists" also betray his own blind, egotistical attitude that prevents him from seeing the truth.

Bugliosi is so quick to categorize and mischaracterize so many diverse and interesting people, how do we categorize and correctly characterize him?

As a lawyer, he's in the same legal category as Mark Lane and Gerald Posner, and as a former prosecutor and district attorney, he's in an even more specific category of former prosecutor, along with Arlen Spector, Richard Sprague, Robert Tannenbaum and G. Robert Blakey.

As a Lone-Nuter in his belief that Oswald was psychologically motivated to kill the President, he stands with Jim Moore, Posner and Max Holland.

That Bugliosi sees what happened at Dealey Plaza as a psychological crime in the mind rather than a political one, cuts directly to the chase, and the main point of contention, and differs completely with David Talbot's perspective (See: Brothers), that whatever happened at Dealey Plaza it was a political crime.

When it comes down to it, the bottom line, it is either a psychological crime or a political one, but it can't be both, one or the other.

5) He presents so much information to promote his case that he unintentionally gives up new evidence of conspiracy, and by adding to the increasing media noise level on the subject of JFK's assassination, he is contributing to the effort to legally resolve the case by keeping it in the public eye.

Edited May 24, 2008 by William Kelly

[Paul Rigby]

..."Posner and the Conspiracy Theorists," which sounds like a bad punk band.

Splendid idea. Suggestion for first record? Magazine's "Shot by both sides."

[Brian Smith]

"Bugliosi's book is EXTREMELY long on arguments, and incredibly short on facts."

That seems to be the style of almost all the Lone-Nutters I have seen on internet forums. They go on and on about how logical their position is, all the while completely ignoring glaring inconsistencies in the evidence. Arguments without sound factual foundation are weak, and only waste ones time. I still wonder what facts caused Palamara to change over to the lone gunman side. Probably what you said - slick arguments that sound persuasive but are skinny on actual facts. A good lawyer could make Mother Theresa look like a villain while making Jeffrey Dahmer look like a misunderstood genius.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Brian Smith

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

..."Posner and the Conspiracy Theorists," which sounds like a bad punk band.

Splendid idea. Suggestion for first record? Magazine's "Shot by both sides."

What about "I Touched Bugliosi's Bunched Jacket"?

Edited May 24, 2008 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Don Jeffries]

Don't expect Palamara to ever cite the "evidence" that converted him. I asked Gary Mack (yes, I know, he still claims to believe in a conspiracy, but he is for all intents and purposes a lone nutter) several times on the old JFK Research Forum to explain exactly what had caused him to suddenly change his views on so many aspects of this case. He was never able to come up with a single example, other than to vaguely charge "critics" with "sloppy research," and "errors." Apparently, he is now comfortable with the morass of easily cited official errors and sloppy research. Todd Vaughn was unable to give me any examples, either.

Among the most notable of these former believers in conspiracy, abruptly converted to lone nutterism, are; Bugliosi (at least as far as the RFK assassination), Vaughn, Dave Reitzes, Dale Myers, Gus Russo, Dan Moldea (again, primarily the RFK assassination), David Perry, Greg Jaynes and now Palamara. Their stories are virtually identical; most of them provided some solid research years ago (particularly Bugliosi, Moldea, Reitzes and Palamara), and all were converted as mysteriously and suddenly as Palamara just was. They remind me of the speakers at virtually any "no money down" real estate seminar (yes, I attended a few in my day)- without exception, every one of them started out almost destitute, having declared bankruptcy, etc., before they discovered the wonderful secret they want to sell you. Just like none of those newly wealthy real estate investors ever started out middle-class, or even slightly wealthy to begin with, none of the most notable lone nutters were always that way; each was "converted" by the same magical means.

My contention is that anyone with the knowledge of this case that Bugliosi, Vaughn, Reitzes, Palamara, etc., possess cannot possibly be persuaded that Oswald acted alone. Period. I can accept that a novice who has only read Posner or Bugliosi, or perhaps a die hard Kennedy hater, can feel adamantly that the official fairy tale is accurate, but anyone who has read "Accessories After The Fact" or "Whitewash" or "Crossfire" cannot disregard their clear and powerful arguments for the pablum produced by Bugliosi, if they are intellectually honest.

[Peter McGuire]

So if the Covert Operative Profile is applied to his chief suspect Oswald, as surely it must, then all the evidence Bugliosi assembles to prove Oswald's guilt, also prove the covert operational conspiracy.

Right on Mr. Kelly. This is another example of the double-speak we are supposed to believe. In this case Oswald did it but he was a loner.

No. He was a low level intelligence operative who may have had something to do with it; and if the Lone Nutters insist he did the actual shooting, then there was a conspiracy and the killer ( according to the LN theory) was a government operative.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Peter McGuire

[Terry Mauro]

So if the Covert Operative Profile is applied to his chief suspect Oswald, as surely it must, then all the evidence Bugliosi assembles to prove Oswald's guilt, also prove the covert operational conspiracy.

Right on Mr. Kelly. This is another example of the double-speak we are supposed to believe. In this case Oswald did it but he was a loner.

No. He was a low level intelligence operative who may have had something to do with it; and if the Lone Nutters insist he did the actual shooting, then there was a conspiracy and the killer ( according to the LN theory) was a government operative.

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

"No. He was a low level intelligence operative who may have had something to do with it; and if the Lone Nutters insist he did the actual shooting, then there was a conspiracy and the killer (according to the LN theory) was a government operative."

Spot on, Peter. The man's own mother, whichever one she was, even claimed so on nationwide television, that "her son was "like" a double agent."

[Bernice Moore]

During the past many years, Vince has referred too many times to a conspiracy,....... to believe otherwards now....imo.....

It takes only one Lone Nutter, and or Government lacky .....to gather and bring the conspiracists together,......and remind them of their common cause......

They may and do continually rattle at each other, at times, ......over their differences of opinion, which must be expected, as it does continually occur..

But when such as this, is announced......which could be considered a boot in the keester...... for all involved..........

They rally, unite and speak out, and it is always a pleasure to see....Because upon that bottom line, ...they are together in their common goal.....

I will continue to admire greatly his invaluable work on the complicity of the SS......and have spent some years now within those studies...and in email contact he has always been helpful .......and courteous.......which has been greatly appreciated.

I respect his right to his own opinion, and whatever the reason for his decision will become clear, eventually...

....So....I do want to thank him for this rally.......and reminding the all, who believe in the conspiracy of their goal......and that imo is good...

Thanks Vince....

Best B

[Charles Drago]

For two very good reasons I am obliged to break my self-imposed public silence on the JFK assassination and address the theme of this thread.

(Before I go into detail, let it be noted for the record that, since the early 1990s, I have thought of Vince Palamara as a friend as well as a comrade in arms. We've enjoyed many important [to me, at least] conversations on the subject of Secret Service culpability and related issues, and I'll never forget the impact of Vince's initial screening, to a JFK Lancer audience in Dallas, of the footage he discovered of Henry Rybka being ordered to stand down at Love Field. For now, the friendship remains intact. But Vince will forgive me if I look elsewhere for someone to watch my six.)

Reason One: Within just a few weeks of its publication, Vince phoned me to ask if I'd had the chance to read Case Closed. I responded in the affirmative, and then proceeded to offer what amounted to a brief but, if I may say so, absolutely sound expose of just a few of the near-countless fatal flaws in Posner's confused and/or criminal (see below) presentation. Here's the important part: Vince said to me -- and I'm quoting nearly verbatim -- "Thanks, Charlie, because for a while I thought we'd been proven wrong. I was ready to say, 'Hey, you guys were right all along.'" He literally sighed in relief.

Apparently Vince is not the ideal foxhole partner.

In other words, his current behavior is hardly without precedent.

Reason Two: It was my friend and mentor George Michael Evica who gave to Vince the first three words of the title of the latter's most important work: The Third Alternative.

George Michael expects me to respond. He valued Vince's dogged persistence as a researcher and his ability to charm the most difficult of interview subjects. When I informed him of our young friend's less than steadfast response to Posner, he was neither surprised nor disappointed.

Which just about sums up my own thoughts on the man.

The strength of Vince's Secret Service work should not be diminished by our recognition of his personal weaknesses. If in fact he has been bought off by Bugliosi and his masters, then to hell with him. But unless I miss my guess, this is just a case of Palamara being Palamara. He'll be back.

So ... I'll take my leave yet again, but not before thanking Don Jeffries for referencing the following:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was the victim of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

[Jack White]

Glad to hear from Charles on this.

Also heard from another researcher who worked closely with Vince...

A theory exists that Vince all along has been a LIMITED HANGOUT MOLE to promote

NEGLIGENCE as opposed to SS being involved in CONSPIRACY...this from someone who

has worked closely with him in the past.

Limited hangout is part of the intelligence arsenal to divert us down false trails.

Cited was his UNLIMITED ACCESS to so many SS agents, and that all confessed

to negligence, not involvement.

Also cited was the fact that Vince has never subscribed to ANY conspiracy theory.

Jack