Vincent Bugliosi: The Whole Story

[James DiEugenio]

http://www.ctka.net/2015/the_prosecutor_bugliosi.html

VInce was Davey's hero.

Go to his site and compare what he wrote about him with what I wrote here. See what he leaves out.

Nothing about that phony Helter Skelter pretense, about which there are two books coming out which will further explode it.

Nothing about his perjury trial.

Nothing about his scandals with the milkman and his girlfriend which detonated his political career, in which he went zero for three.

Nothing about his saying that LAPD did not frame black Americans, in the wake of the horrific Ramparts scandal.

And by the way, I had nothing personal against Vince. I actually liked the guy. But if we are going to be honest about heroes and villains, we have to admit some inconvenient truths. I give Vince some credit here. He did write three good books. But in those cases, he was not the prosecutor.

In the Tate/LaBianca case and the phony JFK London trial, he was the prosecutor. (Or in the latter, he had had to make like it was a trial.) This clouded his judgment and temperament. Vince was nothing if not combative.

And it got the better of him.

Anyway, I think this is the best and fullest bio of Vince there is. My publisher cut it out since he thought it would get me sued for Reclaiming Parkland. I said, "You cannot get sued successfully if its true." That didn't matter to them. Which means the truth didn't matter to them.

Edited July 9, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Jon G. Tidd]

There is no reason to praise Vincent Bugliosi.

He did not serve the truth. That was his job, but he chose to serve himself.

[James DiEugenio]

In the JFK case that is true.

But his books on the Paula Jones case, the Bush vs Gore decision, and the phony pretense for the Iraq war, those were good.

As I argue in Reclaiming Parkland, neither he nor Spence should have taken part in such a farce as the London trial. Because it did not come close to approximating a real trial.

(And BTW, when I did some research on this, i got hints that Tony Summers was actually the lead consultant. Whew.)

But then, Vince doubled down with Oliver Stones' film, and then he doubled down with the ARRB.

RH was actually going to be three volumes long at one time. I asked Vince, "Why so long?" He said, "I have to knock down all that stuff you and Lisa wrote in Probe."

Well it ended up he was trying to knock down every conspiracy theory ever written. Which as Jefferson Morley said, is not a good way to write history, But that is how combative he was.

Edited July 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-93.html

Excerpt from above article....

"In the final analysis of the Manson case, regardless of what the motive for the murders might have been, it is crystal clear by taking just a cursory look at the trial transcripts and the trial excerpts that can be found in the book "Helter Skelter", that Vincent Bugliosi did, in fact, prosecute the real killers of the seven victims in the Tate-LaBianca case.

Another thing that has become crystal clear is that James DiEugenio has made a habit out of turning guilty murderers into innocent bystanders. He's attempted to perform that magical feat in the JFK case when he insists that a double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of killing President Kennedy and was also innocent of murdering Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, and now Jim D. seems to want to do it again with respect to a vicious and savage killer by the name of Susan Denise Atkins.

But, then too, given DiEugenio's track record of getting almost everything wrong when it comes to the John F. Kennedy murder case [such as all of these things], I guess I shouldn't be too surprised by any of the foolish things that come out of his mouth anymore."

David Von Pein
March 7, 2014

Edited July 10, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

By the way, the above shows just what a poor researcher Davey is.

The Tate/ LaBianca case is not a simple case. In fact, because it was disguised so well by VB, there are several web sites you can go to and get some really good info, and boy do they dislike Vince! I spent several nights doing this.

But for example, Atkins did not just go to two people while in detention to try and get a plea. She actually went to four people. Vince does not tell you this. Because then it would be too obvious that she was looking for a deal. See, she was trying to get out of HInman, by using the Tate case as leverage.

But she ended up getting screwed because she would not testify against the others.

But forensically, there was no blood found on her knife. So although she was a conspirator, she was not a murderer. That was just part of the the come on that Schiller used. And in my view she should never have served anywhere near the time she did.

She later came clean and wrote an unpublished book called the Myth of Helter Skelter. In which she exposed all of that Beatles stuff as BS.

And there are two books on the way that will further expose it.

[David Von Pein]

So, Jim, do you think Charlie Manson ordered the Tate-LaBianca murders? Or was Manson just a "patsy"?

I want to hear James DiEugenio utter these words....

Charles Manson was completely innocent. He didn't order anybody to be killed.

In light of Susan Atkins CONFESSING to the murders, Jim has already made himself look really silly with this remark from last year....

"In my opinion, there is no way somebody like Susan Atkins should have ever spent the rest of her life in jail. It's very debatable whether she ever killed anybody. I don't think she did." -- Jim DiEugenio; March 6, 2014

I just want to see how far down Absurd Avenue Jim is willing to go in order to smear the late Mr. Bugliosi (and Vince's tireless work that he did on the Manson case) by telling the world he thinks Manson is snow-white innocent.

Are you willing to go that far, Jim? Or have you done so already?

Edited July 10, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Davey,

I noted about four things in my queries to you.

And they were all lacking from your hagiography site of Vince. In which you essentially say that no one could ever have been a better choice to write a book about the JFK case, and there is not one single significant error in the mammoth RH.

Now, did you tell anyone that Vince was on trial for perjury for his conduct of the Tate/LaBianca case?

Did you even know that? Probably not. Because you are not the kind of person who digs into the record on your own. You rely on others.

Did you note his accusations about Mr. Weisel being the true father of his son and his harassment of him?

And if you did not, did you know this about your idol?

Did you know about his physical beating of his girlfriend, and also his lies about what happened in order to disguise what he had done?

Again, if you do not note that, and you do not, did you know about it? If not, why not? Not hard to find with Google.

Did you know about his shabby political campaigns and his lies about Van De Camp which backfired on him and ended with his smashing defeat at the polls? For the third time!

I don't see any of this info on your site. But yet, unlike with say Jim Garrison, this is not mythology, its true.

Was it your intent to not tell your readers ever about it?

While you spread every piece of disinfo about Garrison you could, for example in your book?

Now, does not that say something about the way you handle evidence? If something or someone favors the WC, you exalt the person with a hagiographic treatment worthy of the Parthenon.

If, like Garrison, they attack the WC, you propagate every piece of BS ever written about the guy and recycle it like a compactor. As you did in your not very successful book?

BTW, why aren't you out hawking your book? Do you really think you are going to sell a lot of copies on this site? Why isn't your agent getting you radio spots, cable TV spots, speaking engagements, Internet interviews etc.? I mean to spend so much time here when you have a relatively new book which says that LHO killed Kennedy, and there is no question about it? Well I would think one would want to spread the word far and wide.

So why aren't you?

Edited July 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Not a single solitary bit of DiEugenio's Bugliosi-trashing effort above has anything whatsoever to do with Vince Bugliosi's JFK book "Reclaiming History". Jimbo is just looking for an excuse--any excuse--to bash Vincent T. Bugliosi. And Jim is willing to travel far outside the "JFK Assassination" perimeter to try and somehow smear Vince's 20-year effort regarding the JFK case. I guess the idea is: If Vince wasn't a saint all of his life, that must mean he was all wrong about all of the evidence in the JFK murder case.

But as the late Mr. Bugliosi himself would no doubt quickly point out to Jim ---

That's a non sequitur of Olympian proportions there.

But the fact remains that Vince Bugliosi, in his huge tome "Reclaiming History", has proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at least ten times over. The question of whether or not Oswald was involved in ANY type of conspiracy can never, of course, be answered with 100% certainty (and I've said that very thing myself in the past; and if you want my direct quotes, I'll be happy to dig them up). But I agree with Vince when he said....

"In the [John F.] Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 973 of "Reclaiming History"

Edited July 10, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

BTW, why aren't you out hawking your book? Do you really think you are going to sell a lot of copies on this site? Why isn't your agent getting you radio spots, cable TV spots, speaking engagements, Internet interviews etc.? I mean to spend so much time here when you have a relatively new book which says that LHO killed Kennedy, and there is no question about it? Well I would think one would want to spread the word far and wide.

So why aren't you?

I've done quite a bit of online promoting of the book via my websites. (Not that it's done much good.) But I have never fooled myself into thinking "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" was going to sell well at all. I was hoping it would, of course, but I never expected it to.

And, btw, the publisher ("Strategic Media Books") is a joke. At least they were a joke as far as "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is concerned. Mel Ayton and I can tell multiple horror stories about our dealings with that particular publishing house.

Related conversation.....

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

David is obviously just out to make a buck, like all those horrible conspiracy authors.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're nuts. I knew the book wouldn't sell very well at all. And it hasn't. I doubt it's sold 50 copies yet since its release in December 2014. Sales are pathetic, just as I knew they would be.

I got involved in the BRD book project because Mel Ayton asked me to contribute some of my material to his manuscript. And I was honored to be asked to do so. I didn't do it to "make a buck". I haven't seen dollar #1 yet, btw [as of June 7, 2015]. And I'm wondering if I'll ever see even 50 cents.

So you can take your "out to make a buck" garbage and do something unmentionable with it. 10-4?

David Von Pein

June 6-7, 2015

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-951.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But thanks for mentioning the book again, Jim. Every little bit of advertising helps.

My "BRD" book page:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html

Edited July 10, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

That isn't what I said Davey.

What I said was: Why aren't you out TRYING to sell the book. Do you really think you are going to sell copies on this site?

Secondly, as I have said, I liked Vince. And I liked some of the books he did. But if you are going to write about a subject, then you should do some background work on him. I did so for Reclaiming Parkland. If I did not include the bad with the good, then I would not have been honest would I?

Vince had a quite combative personality. Only such a person could have used such an overload of invective and insults, which he heaped on the critical community throughout RP. Much of it unwarranted. I didn't hear you complain about that did I? Not one bit.

Now, my point was about you and Ayton and Garrison. Much of the stuff you wrote about JG in your book was pure mythology, which Martin Hay pointed out. But yet, on the one hand you censored unflattering stuff about Vince, which was true, but had no trouble passing on the myths about JG, which were mostly false. This portrays a serious double standard on your part.

(So what else is new?)

[David G. Healy]

BTW, why aren't you out hawking your book? Do you really think you are going to sell a lot of copies on this site? Why isn't your agent getting you radio spots, cable TV spots, speaking engagements, Internet interviews etc.? I mean to spend so much time here when you have a relatively new book which says that LHO killed Kennedy, and there is no question about it? Well I would think one would want to spread the word far and wide.

So why aren't you?

...

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're nuts. I knew the book wouldn't sell very well at all. And it hasn't. I doubt it's sold 50 copies yet since its release in December 2014. Sales are pathetic, just as I knew they would be.

I got involved in the BRD book project because Mel Ayton asked me to contribute some of my material to his manuscript. And I was honored to be asked to do so. I didn't do it to "make a buck". I haven't seen dollar #1 yet, btw [as of June 7, 2015]. And I'm wondering if I'll ever see even 50 cents.

...

well, there it is..... between Reclaiming History and Beyond Reasonable Doubt a total of 161 books sold... tsk-tsk. What a couple of barn-burners!

[David G. Healy]

...

But the fact remains that Vince Bugliosi, in his huge tome "Reclaiming History", has proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at least ten times over.

Well, from what I understand, Vin's Reclaiming History had somewhere in the neighborhood of 53 reasons laid out. I also understand all 53 of those reasons were demolished on another forum. Is that correct? I understand you fled debate?

Edited July 10, 2015 by David G. Healy

[James DiEugenio]

RH only proves one thing: That Vince made a mistake and he then doubled down on it twice.

The very fact of its length is testimony to its failure.

VB tries to make an argument by 1) Sheer verbosity and 2.) By switchblade intimidation

Neither worked. Because a book is long does not mean its good. It just means its long.

And if Vince had the intellectual back up to dispel say, Sylvia Meagher and Dave Mantik and Gary Aguilar and John Newman, he would not have needed the invective he employed throughout. Which was very unbecoming of a celebrity attorney and author.

Those 53 "proofs" of Oswald's guilt were well disposed of by Rodger Remington in Biting the Elephant.

I myself then put together a list of 63 things that showed Oswald was innocent.

But then I also showed here that Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas making that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?

Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.

Edited July 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Yeah, right, Jim. In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics would present it", Vince would have had to touch base with every single CTer who has ever posted on the Internet (or who has ever written one of the hundreds of books on the case), because almost every CTer has at least a slightly different theory or approach to the evidence in the case.

A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the CTers themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some conspiracy theorist out there who will be able to say (after reading "RH") -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a l-i-a-r! He didn't present THIS part of the case in the exact way *I* think it should have been presented, and therefore I get to call Vince a cheat and a l-i-a-r.

It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as CTers want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he had written 10,000 pages instead of just 2,800. But I, myself, think Vince did just fine in debunking virtually all of the major conspiraciy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it.

Edited July 10, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

Davey,

I noted about four things in my queries to you.

And they were all lacking from your hagiography site of Vince. In which you essentially say that no one could ever have been a better choice to write a book about the JFK case, and there is not one single significant error in the mammoth RH.

Now, did you tell anyone that Vince was on trial for perjury for his conduct of the Tate/LaBianca case?

Did you even know that? Probably not. Because you are not the kind of person who digs into the record on your own. You rely on others.

Did you note his accusations about Mr. Weisel being the true father of his son and his harassment of him?

And if you did not, did you know this about your idol?

Did you know about his physical beating of his girlfriend, and also his lies about what happened in order to disguise what he had done?

Again, if you do not note that, and you do not, did you know about it? If not, why not? Not hard to find with Google.

Did you know about his shabby political campaigns and his lies about Van De Camp which backfired on him and ended with his smashing defeat at the polls? For the third time!

I don't see any of this info on your site. But yet, unlike with say Jim Garrison, this is not mythology, its true.

Was it your intent to not tell your readers ever about it?

While you spread every piece of disinfo about Garrison you could, for example in your book?

Now, does not that say something about the way you handle evidence? If something or someone favors the WC, you exalt the person with a hagiographic treatment worthy of the Parthenon.

If, like Garrison, they attack the WC, you propagate every piece of BS ever written about the guy and recycle it like a compactor. As you did in your not very successful book?

BTW, why aren't you out hawking your book? Do you really think you are going to sell a lot of copies on this site? Why isn't your agent getting you radio spots, cable TV spots, speaking engagements, Internet interviews etc.? I mean to spend so much time here when you have a relatively new book which says that LHO killed Kennedy, and there is no question about it? Well I would think one would want to spread the word far and wide.

So why aren't you?

Jim, I know you are familiar with the Barry Krusch offer on anyone proving that LHO was guilty. I asked DVP why he didn't take him up, I'm sure he would see that as some easy money. He won't take the challenge and has a feeble excuse.