Final thoughts on Vincent Guinn and his 1978 testimony

[Pat Speer]

As pointed out by Spence, Guinn tested only two of the many fragments on the x-rays of Kennedy's skull.

So? What difference does it make how many he examined?

Guinn examined two of the skull fragments, and since Dr. Guinn knew beyond all doubt that ONLY ONE BULLET hit Kennedy in the head (based on other information, such as the autopsy report and the testimony of all three autopsy surgeons), he therefore doesn't need to examine every single head fragment--because he knew that only ONE bullet was involved in the head shot.

SPEER: What nonsense! Guinn was not there to testify about the autopsy report. He was there to testify about what HIS tests showed, and that's all. That's the strange thing about expert testimony, David, experts are only supposed to testify about what THEY'VE concluded, within the limits of their expertise. By claiming he KNEW where these fragments came from, Guinn broke every rule re expert testimony, and PROVED himself to be an advocate, not a scientist.

Which, of course, is exactly why he answered Spence's question the way he did when he was asked about the other fragments that he (Guinn) did not examine. Guinn, utilizing some common sense, said he knew what the composition of those other head fragments was, and the reason he could state such a thing is because he knew that those unexamined fragments had NO CHOICE but to match the composition of the two fragments he did examine--because, again, he knew only one bullet hit the President in the head.

SPEER: He "knew" no such thing. No one did. It was not his job to use common sense. It was his job to report his test results, which never got into this area.

And Guinn's tests proved nothing as to what kind of bullets created Kennedy's other injuries.

But Dr. Guinn, nonetheless, most certainly did know what kind of bullets created the President's other injuries. Guinn knew that CE399 had, indeed, passed through JFK's body (per the HSCA determination on this matter; was he supposed to pretend that some OTHER bullet went through JFK, even after his own HSCA said that 399 did pass through Kennedy?).

SPEER: This is embarrassing, David, your trying to defend such an obvious xxxx. Guinn did not "know" CE 399 passed through Kennedy based upon the findings of the HSCA FPP any more than you "know" the back wound was below the throat wound based upon the findings of the HSCA FPP.

And Guinn examined CE399. And no other bullet hit Kennedy in the neck or back region. So, yes, Guinn positively knew what kind of bullets caused ALL of JFK's injuries--the ONE head-shot bullet (of which he examined two fragments), and CE399.

SPEER: He did not "know" this, and he admitted he did not know this in his HSCA testimony. If you learn to read first and defend liars later, you'll save yourself lots and lots of embarrassment.

No lying by Guinn at all. Merely his own analysis of the TWO and only two bullets that struck President Kennedy. And the HSCA, on which Guinn served, declared that ONLY TWO BULLETS struck JFK's body. So, please tell the world, Pat, how this amounts to Dr. Vincent Perry Guinn telling a bunch of lies at the 1986 television docu-trial in London?

SPEER: Because he testified to the exact opposite in his 1978 testimony? Geez... You shouldn't make it so easy, David. All you had to do was admit that Guinn overstated the significance of his tests and that Bugliosi got caught up in Guinn's excitement. That would have been sufficient. But trying to claim Guinn's mock trial testimony was correct, and that his tests on a fragment found in Connally's wrist proved what kind of bullet hit Kennedy's back? Oh, my... That's just embarrassing.

[Andric Perez]

Andric,

You just don't get it, do you? My "ironclad" remark does not refer to NAA at all (whether it be "junk science" or not). Read it again. I was talking about the two specimens that Guinn examined that were proven in an "ironclad" manner (i.e., via non-NAA testing) to have been fired from Oswald's rifle (CE399 & CE567).

Oh, I see. I think you think the HSCA firearms panel toolmarks identification technique yielded an "ironclad" conclusion. Too bad the National Academy of Sciences does not have the same confidence in firearms identification as you do:

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (2004): Underlying the specific tasks with which the committee was charged is the question of whether firearms-related toolmarks are unique: that is, whether a particular set of toolmarks can be shown to come from one weapon to the exclusion of all others. Very early in its work the committee found that this question cannot now be definitively.

Finding: The validity of the fundamental assumptions of uniqueness and reproducibility of firearms-related toolmarks has not yet been fully demonstrated.

Notwithstanding this finding, we accept a minimal baseline standard regarding ballistics evidence. Although they are subject to numerous sources of variability, firearms-related toolmarks are not completely random and volatile; one can find similar marks on bullets and cartridge cases from the same gun.

A significant amount of research would be needed to scientifically determine the degree to which firearms-related toolmarks are unique or even to quantitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness.

So this means that in 2004 nobody knew how many marks are necessary in order to link a questioned bullet to a specific gun, yet you believe that a 1979 conclusion to that effect was an "ironclad" fact? Very interesting.

Can you tell us what is the probability that the badly damaged CE-567 may share the same number of matching striae with a test-bullet fired from a rifle other than CE-139 as it did with CE-399? Was there a database with statistics regarding marks left by different rifles?

Do you think the HSCA was wrong when it disagreed with Joseph Nicol regarding one of the Tippit bullets? (Nicol said the bullet was fired from Oswald's revolver while HSCA found it inconclusive). If you agree with Nicol, why do you trust the HSCA panel so?

Edited July 8, 2011 by Andric Perez

[Andric Perez]

AP: The validity of the fundamental assumptions of uniqueness and reproducibility of firearms-related toolmarks has not yet been fully demonstrated.

Beautiful catch.

What is the exact source?

Link here: http://www.swggun.org/resources/docs/Ballistic%20Imaging%20Exec%20Summary.pdf

If you liked that one you will love this one, in the words of Professor of Law in UCLA, Jennifer Mnookin (A.B. from Harvard College and a J.D. from Yale Law School, Visiting professor at Harvard School of Law):

"For many long used types of forensic science, including fingerprint identification, firearms identification, handwriting identification, and toolmark identification, experts’ claims about their field, the authority of their methodologies, and their own abilities have dramatically outstripped what has actually been established by persuasive research and careful study. http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Alumni_Affairs/Mnookin_The_Courts_The_NAS_and_the_Future.pdf

The same Professor above is currently working on a U.S. Department of Justice-funded project aimed at finding an error rate on the discipline of fingerprint examination, which will be out in the summer of 2012. As you may remember, the FBI once claimed that some Oregon Muslim blew up a Madrid train, when in fact it turned out some other dude did it. This and other scandals left the US Government with no other choice but to find out what the hell is going on with this "expert" testimony. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/two-ucla-professors-awarded-national-153642.aspx

Edited July 8, 2011 by Andric Perez

[Pat Speer]

AP: The validity of the fundamental assumptions of uniqueness and reproducibility of firearms-related toolmarks has not yet been fully demonstrated.

Beautiful catch.

What is the exact source?

Link here: http://www.swggun.org/resources/docs/Ballistic%20Imaging%20Exec%20Summary.pdf

If you liked that one you will love this one, in the words of Professor of Law in UCLA, Jennifer Mnookin (A.B. from Harvard College and a J.D. from Yale Law School, Visiting professor at Harvard School of Law):

"For many long used types of forensic science, including fingerprint identification, firearms identification, handwriting identification, and toolmark identification, experts’ claims about their field, the authority of their methodologies, and their own abilities have dramatically outstripped what has actually been established by persuasive research and careful study. http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Alumni_Affairs/Mnookin_The_Courts_The_NAS_and_the_Future.pdf

The same Professor above is currently working on a U.S. Department of Justice-funded project aimed at finding an error rate on the discipline of fingerprint examination, which will be out in the summer of 2012. As you may remember, the FBI once claimed that some Oregon Muslim blew up a Madrid train, when in fact it turned out some other dude did it. This and other scandals left the US Government with no other choice but to find out what the hell is going on with this "expert" testimony. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/two-ucla-professors-awarded-national-153642.aspx

Thanks for the tip, Andric. Although I've never got around to writing much about it, I've done a lot of research on fingerprint examination, and it's not what people think it is. While some countries insisted that there needs to be a certain number of points of identification before a questioned print and known print can be considered a match, other countries acknowledge that such a number is pretty arbitrary, and that what really matters is the confidence of the examiner, and the rarities of the loops and whirls in the match.

In other words, the bulk of the world now admits that fingerprint identification is an inexact science, and more akin to lie detection than something more precise, like DNA analysis. At the center of this storm are a number of controversial cases in which one group of experts claims two prints match, and experts from around the world claim that they do not match. This flies in the face of the oft-repeated claim that experts know a match when they see one.

[David Von Pein]

It was not his [Vincent Guinn's] job to use common sense.

Classic, Pat. Just fabulous. (And hilarious, too.)

FACT: By 1986, Dr. Vincent Guinn most CERTAINLY knew that the HSCA (as well as the WC) had determined that CE399 was the bullet that went through both JFK & JBC.

And Guinn certainly knew, by '86, that the autopsy report indicated that ONLY ONE BULLET had hit JFK in the head.

Now, given these raw facts, determined by not just one--but TWO different committees who were assigned the task of investigating JFK's murder, it was perfectly reasonable for Dr. Guinn to testify the way he did in 1986, and to provide some "common sense" (yes, ordinary common sense) to both his findings re NAA when coupled with the other things that were determined by the WC and HSCA.

But to conspiracy theorists, common sense is a lost art form. Because no conspiracist on the Internet seems to possess that quality whatsoever. But I thought Patrick J. Speer was cut from a slightly different CT cloth. Perhaps I was mistaken, given this gem of a bladder-buster from Pat's keyboard today:

"It was not his job to use common sense."

That was a whopper, Pat. And it's something that surely even you do not really subscribe to. Because even an expert on a witness stand in a courtroom is allowed to utilize common sense in his or her testimony.

Edited July 8, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I think you finally made your point clear. In your article about NAA, you based your conclusions on outside evidence (i.e. the autopsy) that has nothing to do with the NAA technique. I never thought anyone would follow that train of thought, so it did not cross my mind that you were using that kind of logic.

I fully admitted in my article that NAA tests have been under fire in the last few years. And I fully admitted that NAA was not an exacting science.

But Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt and the SBT most certainly do not hinge on anyone's NAA tests. Oswald is still quite guilty and the SBT is still going to be true with or without Dr. Guinn's NAA studies. And those things couldn't be any more obvious, given the totality of evidence in this case, and (in the case of the SBT specifically) the LACK of any other bullets to explain multiple missiles striking the two victims in the limousine.

As I've said before, common sense ALONE supports the high likelihood of the Single-Bullet Theory being true. And ANY other conclusion reached by anyone to explain the wounding of John Kennedy and John Connally falls miles short of the SBT conclusion.

A COMMON-SENSE GUIDE TO THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY

You mentioned the HSCA conclusion about the two bullets, but don't you remember that Blakey said Guinn's tests were the "linchpin" of the single bullet theory? There's even a book titled, "Blakey's "Linchpin".

By Wallace Milam. Oh, good Lord. I've had a few go-rounds with him in the past. What a hothead.

And don't you remember that this "linchpin" then became "junk science" according to the chief counsel of HSCA?

If Blakey ever used that word, "linchpin", when discussing the SBT, he's certainly misguided. Because, as stated before, NAA is not needed whatsoever to arrive at a reasonable, logical conclusion regarding the SBT. And Blakey surely knows that's true as well. He has to know it. He can't NOT know it.

Oh, I see. I think you think the HSCA firearms panel toolmarks identification technique yielded an "ironclad" conclusion. Too bad the National Academy of Sciences does not have the same confidence in firearms identification as you do.

Oh, brother.

Police departments and the FBI have been utilizing toolmark/striation identification on bullets and guns for decades. Probably, what, 70 or 80 years or so (maybe even more)? And now suddenly ALL of those "to the exclusion" determinations are to wiped out by a 2004 NAS study? Give me a break.

RE: Joseph D. Nicol:

Obviously, yes, I do agree with Nicol's determination re the one bullet that he said was positively fired in LHO's S&W revolver. But I can also totally understand the HSCA's reluctance to accept his findings on that one bullet, given the FBI's overall unwillingness to reach that conclusion.

But Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder has never hinged on the BULLETS plucked from Officer Tippit's body. The reason we know Oswald killed Tippit is due to the bullet SHELL CASINGS, which were positively fired from Revolver V510210 -- or do you want to pretend that determination was all wrong too--based on a 2004 report?

And since Oswald was also positively identified as the ONE AND ONLY person with a gun who was dumping shells out of a gun on Tenth Street on 11/22/63, plus the fact that Oswald had ON HIM the same gun that was linked to all 4 shells on 10th Street, this pretty much seals the guilty verdict in that case.

Or does some CTer want to claim that somebody else shot Tippit with Oswald's gun, and then somehow got LHO to take back that gun within 35 minutes, prior to Oswald being arrested with that gun in his hands in the theater (while trying to kill policemen with it--again)?

As Mr. Bugliosi says (and it's oh so true on JFK Internet boards like this one) -- I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there nothing too silly for their palate when it comes to this JFK case? (I sometimes wonder.)

Edited July 8, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

It was not his [Vincent Guinn's] job to use common sense.

Classic, Pat. Just fabulous. (And hilarious, too.)

FACT: By 1986, Dr. Vincent Guinn most CERTAINLY knew that the HSCA (as well as the WC) had determined that CE399 was the bullet that went through both JFK & JBC.

And Guinn certainly knew, by '86, that the autopsy report indicated that ONLY ONE BULLET had hit JFK in the head.

Now, given these raw facts, determined by not just one--but TWO different committees who were assigned the task of investigating JFK's murder, it was perfectly reasonable for Dr. Guinn to testify the way he did in 1986, and to provide some "common sense" (yes, ordinary common sense) to both his findings re NAA when coupled with the other things that were determined by the WC and HSCA.

But to conspiracy theorists, common sense is a lost art form. Because no conspiracist on the Internet seems to possess that quality whatsoever. But I thought Patrick J. Speer was cut from a slightly different CT cloth. Perhaps I was mistaken, given this gem of a bladder-buster from Pat's keyboard today:

"It was not his job to use common sense."

That was a whopper, Pat. And it's something that surely even you do not really subscribe to. Because even an expert on a witness stand in a courtroom is allowed to utilize common sense in his or her testimony.

This is among the worst posts you've ever made. You know darn well that experts are supposed to testify on THEIR areas of expertise, and THEIR tests and observations, and not on what they've heard from others. You forget, moreover, that Bugliosi didn't ask Guinn what he'd concluded after studying the case, he asked him what HIS tests proved.

And Guinn lied about it. And Bugliosi almost certainly knew he lied about it.

Here, let's review. Maybe it will sink in this time. I'll even highlight the key parts in case you're too busy to read them all.

Here is how Guinn testified in 1978:

"These results only show that the CE 399 "pristine" bullet, or so-called stretcher bullet, matches the fragments in his wrist. They give you no information whatsoever about whether that bullet first went through President Kennedy's body, since it left no track of fragments and, for that matter, it doesn't even say that it went through Governor Connally--through his back, that is--because it left no track of fragments there. At least I have never seen or heard of any recovered lead fragments from either of those wounds. The results merely say that the stretcher bullet matches the fragments in the wrist, and that indicates indeed that that particular bullet did fracture the wrist. It unfortunately can't tell you anything else because there were no other bits and pieces along the other wounds."

And here is what he wrote the next year, in Analytical Chemistry:

"The new results can not prove the Warren Commission's theory that the stretcher bullet is the one that caused the President's back wound and all of the Governor's wounds, but the results are indeed consistent with this theory."

And here is what he claimed his results proved in 1986, after rehearsing his testimony with Bugliosi:

"ONLY bullets from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the President."

This is both a total refutation of his former testimony, and a lie. And Bugliosi most certainly knew this.

Now, how can you not see this? You know, it really wouldn't kill you to admit that Guinn--whose testimony has already been abandoned by the scientific community--testified to things he couldn't possibly have known.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

It really wouldn't kill you to admit that Guinn--whose testimony has already been abandoned by the scientific community--testified to things he couldn't possibly have know[n].

Dr. Guinn, as of July 1986, knew that the HSCA and WC had concluded that only two bullets struck JFK. (He was supposed to ignore those conclusions when he was answering Bugliosi's questions in '86, right Pat?)

And Guinn also knew that CE399 and CE567 had come from Oswald's rifle.

Guinn merely did the simple math (and applied common sense to his own NAA work) when he said "That's a correct statement, yes" to Bugliosi's question about only Oswald's bullets striking the President.

And Bugliosi prefaced his final question to Guinn by outlining the fact that the HSCA concluded that CE399 and CE567 had come from Oswald's rifle.

So, with that prefacing in mind (which is prefacing that deals directly with the two largest fragments/bullets that Guinn examined via NAA), Guinn's answer to Bugliosi's very good question about only bullets from Oswald's Carcano hitting JFK is a very reasonable answer--and far from the "lie" you seem to want to think it is.

In short, you're making a mountain out of another anthill here (as all conspiracy theorists do, 24/7).

Edited July 8, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Andric Perez]

Dr. Guinn, as of July 1986, knew that the HSCA and WC had concluded that only two bullets struck JFK. (He was supposed to ignore those conclusions when he was answering Bugliosi's questions in '86, right Pat?)

Federal Rules of Evidence:

"The expert's testimony must be grounded in an accepted body of learning or experience in the expert's field, and the expert must explain how the conclusion is so grounded."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule702.htm

Can you tell us what was Guinn's field of expertise?

Did Guinn explain "how the conclusion is so grounded"?

Edited July 8, 2011 by Andric Perez

[Pat Speer]

It really wouldn't kill you to admit that Guinn--whose testimony has already been abandoned by the scientific community--testified to things he couldn't possibly have know[n].

Dr. Guinn, as of July 1986, knew that the HSCA and WC had concluded that only two bullets struck JFK. (He was supposed to ignore those conclusions when he was answering Bugliosi's questions in '86, right Pat?)

SPEER: Yes, OF COURSE, he was supposed to ignore their conclusions. He was supposed to testify on his test results, not other people's assumptions and conclusions. What, you think he didn't know what they'd concluded in '78? Or '79? Get real.

And Guinn also knew that CE399 and CE567 had come from Oswald's rifle.

SPEER: Totally irrelevant. Guinn testified before the HSCA that without his studying fragments from Kennedy's wound track he could come to no conclusions re which bullet or bullets created Kennedy's back and neck wounds. Here it is again: "These results only show that the CE 399 "pristine" bullet, or so-called stretcher bullet, matches the fragments in his wrist. They give you no information whatsoever about whether that bullet first went through President Kennedy's body, since it left no track of fragments and, for that matter, it doesn't even say that it went through Governor Connally--through his back, that is--because it left no track of fragments there. At least I have never seen or heard of any recovered lead fragments from either of those wounds. The results merely say that the stretcher bullet matches the fragments in the wrist, and that indicates indeed that that particular bullet did fracture the wrist. It unfortunately can't tell you anything else because there were no other bits and pieces along the other wounds."

Guinn merely did the simple math (and applied common sense to his own NAA work) when he said "That's a correct statement, yes" to Bugliosi's question about only Oswald's bullets striking the President.

SPEER: Nonsense, David. What simple math? Show us how, step by step, Guinn's tests on a Connally wrist fragment proved the number and type of the bullets creating Kennedy's wounds.

And Bugliosi prefaced his final question to Guinn by outlining the fact that the HSCA concluded that CE399 and CE567 had come from Oswald's rifle.

So, with that prefacing in mind (which is prefacing that deals directly with the two largest fragments/bullets that Guinn examined via NAA), Guinn's answer to Bugliosi's very good question about only bullets from Oswald's Carcano hitting JFK is a very reasonable answer--and far from the "lie" you seem to want to think it is.

In short, you're making a mountain out of another anthill here (as all conspiracy theorists do, 24/7).

SPEER: WRONG. You're burying your head in the sand. Watch the testimony again. Bugliosi knew full well it would be improper for him to ask Guinn what Guinn had concluded after reading the HSCA's report, or the testimony of Baden, etc. And so he asked Guinn what conclusions Guinn had come to via his neutron activation analysis of the bullet fragments. And Guinn testified in direct opposition to his HSCA testimony. He lied. And Bugliosi almost certainly knew it.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Bugliosi knew full well it would be improper for him to ask Guinn what Guinn had concluded after reading the HSCA's report, or the testimony of Baden, etc. And so he asked Guinn what conclusions Guinn had come to via his neutron activation analysis of the bullet fragments. And Guinn testified in direct opposition to his HSCA testimony. He lied. And Bugliosi almost certainly knew it.

Guinn lied about nothing. It was his opinion in 1986 that only two bullets from LHO's gun had struck the President.

And, as I said, this opinion was drawn out of Guinn by Bugliosi AFTER Bugliosi had prefaced his final question to Guinn by asking him two "You are aware, aren't you?" type of questions regarding the HSCA's determinations concerning CE399 and CE567 coming from Oswald's rifle.

Given the prefacing questions (which were not objected to by Spence, btw), Guinn's answer to Bugliosi's last question was perfectly reasonable and understandable. He did not lie when he answered that question. And that's because we all know that Guinn did believe that only bullets from Oswald's rifle hit JFK.

Now, you can argue about whether Guinn's OPINIONS should have been permitted to go into the record at the '86 mock trial without a peep of an objection by Mr. Spence on the other side of the aisle. And, yes, perhaps Spence should have objected, in this manner, after Bugliosi started talking about the HSCA's conclusions re CE399 & CE567:

"Objection, your Honor, those questions are outside the scope of expertise of this witness. Whatever was determined by the HSCA regarding the toolmark identification of those bullets does not involve Dr. Guinn's area of expertise here, and it should be stricken."

But that objection (or one similar to it) did not come from Spence. And I'll ask you: Why not?

If eliciting such "opinions" by experts is really outside their field of "expertise", then why didn't Spence vigorously object to Bugliosi's final "Only Two Bullets" question of Dr. Guinn?

ADDENDUM:

As a final thought on this matter about whether or not Dr. Vincent Guinn lied when he answered the last question that was asked of him by Vincent Bugliosi in London in July 1986:

It's rather difficult for me think of Dr. Guinn's answer as being an outright "lie" (regardless of how he testified on a previous occasion in 1978), and that's due to the fact that his answer was so obviously the correct answer to the question he was asked (when based on the totality of all of the evidence in this case).

In other words, it's very difficult for me to think of the truth as being a lie.

Edited July 9, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Andric Perez]

Mr. Von Pein, I thought Guinn's field of expertise was NAA and not firearms identification. What kind of training and/or education did he receive in the firearms identification field?

[David Von Pein]

Mr. Perez,

See my last post.

Edited July 9, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Again, DVP fails to see that the acceptance of such information by a witness--which was clearly outside of his field of expertise--shows what a farce the London trial was.

It's actually worse than that, Jim. Bugliosi did not ask Guinn if he felt only two bullets hit Kennedy, or if his understanding of all the evidence told him only two bullets hit Kennedy. He was asked, specifically, if he'd reached such a conclusion from his Neutron Activation Analysis. And Guinn said "yes," when he'd previously admitted there was no way a test upon a fragment from Connally's wrist could tell him what bullet struck Kennedy in the back, when no fragments were recovered from the back.

In short, he lied. And Bugliosi almost certainly knew he lied. Now, if David really wanted to defend Guinn's integrity, he could point out that we don't KNOW Guinn lied, as it's possible he'd forgotten just what fragments he'd tested, and how they'd pertained to the case. But he refuses to do so and instead offers up this claim that Guinn was most probably testifying to conclusions he'd come to separate from his tests. This is David's personal fantasy. He has nothing to back this up outside his desire it be so.

Here's an analogy. Let's say Jean Hill was asked to testify by Spence. Let's say Spence asked Hill, who'd previously claimed she'd thought shots had been fired from the grassy knoll, if based on what she saw in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63 that it was her conclusion that Oswald had never fired a shot at Kennedy nor at Tippit. Well, Bugliosi would have had a fit, and David would be correct in claiming such a fit was justified. Hill was not a witness to the Tippit slaying, so why would Spence be trying to get her OPINION on this slaying into testimony?

Because he was a sleazy lawyer, right?

Well, Guinn never tested any fragments pulled from Kennedy's back or throat wound. So why would Bugliosi encourage him to claim his tests proved only two bullets struck Kennedy, and that they were both fired by Oswald?

The answer is pretty obvious. Bugliosi was a sleazy lawyer, and a suborner of perjury.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Pat,

I'll ask again -- Why didn't Spence object to Bugliosi's "sleazy" tactics when Dr. Guinn was on the witness stand?

Was Spence THAT much of a total boob? Couldn't he see that VB's questioning of Guinn was "outside the scope"? And yet we heard not a peep from Gerry.

Edited July 9, 2011 by David Von Pein