The JFK Assassination (2018) by James DiEugenio

[B. A. Copeland]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks so much B. A.

Fans of the Kennedys and King web site are lining up some radio interviews for me.

There is one called the Corbett Report which looks like a really intelligent radio show podcast.  Some one is trying to get me on that one right now.

Sounds good to me and my pleasure Jim.

[Joseph McBride]

Thomas, ouch -- what an author wants to hear is, "I will buy a copy." I ordered a copy of Jim's book, and it will arrive today. Support

your respected JFK assassination authors!

Edited May 8, 2018 by Joseph McBride

[Thomas Graves]

7 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Thomas, ouch -- what an author wants to hear is, "I will buy a copy." I ordered a copy of Jim's book, and it will arrive today. Support

your respected JFK assassination authors!

 

Joseph,

 

I already wasted some perfectly good money on Jefferson Morley's (IMHO) intellectually dishonest "The Ghost."

Have you seen my one-star review of it on Amazon?

 It's under my code name "dumptrumpputin".

 

--  TG

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

I guarantee you will learn something from my book.

Its divided into three main parts.

Part One is on Bugliosi and the Mock Trial in London.  Its really odd because in two of the three interviews I have done, both hosts brought up that part of the book.  Its where I go into the whole Tate La Bianca case.  I had never read Helter Skelter before I wrote this book.  But I thought man, if Bugliosi was this bad on the JFK case, maybe I should read that one.  So I did.  

I was really kind of shocked. Today, I believe that Bugliosi covered up the real facts of that case in order to make a big name for himself.  This is why the publisher did not print a large part of that section  in the first edition.  He was worried Bugliosi would sue.   I said, go ahead let him sue, its all true and he will lose and we will gain publicity.   No go.

The second part if a minute expose of RH.  I came to the conclusion that his book is largely an argument made by length and invective.  There is hardly anything new in the entire book.  I really do not think Vince left his den while writing it.  This kind of angers me since many real researchers do a lot of expeditions to find new information.  Not Vince.  I also came to the conclusion that Vince was not honest in his opening intro where he said he would make his arguments as the critics would make them before invalidating.  

Vince played Pinocchio on that one.  He did not do that at all. And I prove it over and over.

The last part is about the New Hollywood and the JFK case.  I go after Tom Hanks at length and to a lesser extent Spielberg. Hanks is the worst amateur historian ever.  I went over in detail what he did in three films on key subjects, Charlie Wilson's War, Parkland and The Post. My review of the last is about twenty pages long, much longer than my written critique.

Hanks view of history is dangerous. For us all. It ratifies false narratives and makes false heroes out of people who are in no way heroes at all.

Edited May 9, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Vince Palamara]

Wow, Jim- I am just starting to read your excellent book (I have the original edition) and I am relieved to know I am not losing my mind haha! I am currently reading the part about the Helter Skelter book and I kept saying to myself "wait- I don't remember that!" I thought only the JFK sections were updated. Glad to know I was wrong. :)

Tremendous writing and research, my friend. Glad to hear from Joseph McBride above, as well- love his book, too!

[Vince Palamara]

Postscript: as many people know, back in early 2007, I briefly left my senses and became a very reluctant Oswald-did-it guy because of Bugliosi's book [I believed there were multiple conspiracies to kill Kennedy...but Oswald beat them to the punch. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it, too LOL!] In any event, in this regard, I corresponded with and spoke to Vince Bugliosi several times. I was an admirer of his work (other books, as well) and his speaking style (his OJ book is still fantastic with me!). Vince received evidence of my warped sense of humor:

He phoned me once and, knowing it was him from the caller id, I actually answered the phone "Tex Watson here!" He laughed out loud and really got a kick out of that!

[Thomas Graves]

8 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

Postscript: as many people know, back in early 2007, I briefly left my senses and became a very reluctant Oswald-did-it guy because of Bugliosi's book [I believed there were multiple conspiracies to kill Kennedy...but Oswald beat them to the punch. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it, too LOL!] In any event, in this regard, I corresponded with and spoke to Vince Bugliosi several times. I was an admirer of his work (other books, as well) and his speaking style (his OJ book is still fantastic with me!). Vince received evidence of my warped sense of humor:

He phoned me once and, knowing it was him from the caller id, I actually answered the phone "Tex Watson here!" He laughed out loud and really got a kick out of that!

 

Vince,

 

I've always thought you were really, really gullible.

For example, do still think Nosenko was a true defector, as James and Jefferson Morley apparently do?

(LOL)

 

-- Charles

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[David Von Pein]

I, too, have a question for Vince Palamara (and I promise not to "derail" this Jim DiEugenio Lovefest Thread after this one question)....

Vince,

Can you give me just one single example of something that Lee Harvey Oswald did or said on either November 21st or November 22nd, 1963, that would indicate (even in a very small way) that he was involved in any kind of a conspiracy with any other person (or persons) with respect to the assassination of JFK or the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit?

Thank you.

Edited May 10, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Vince:

 

i actually remember that recantation of yours.  It was sort of like Galileo denouncing his discoveries in physics.  But I am glad you recovered.

This is what I mean.  Bugliosi's book was an argument by length.  I would be willing to wager that maybe ten people in the country read the whole thing.  The only way you can read it is by sitting at a computer screen with the CD plugged in and then having the book open on the desk.  Because when the publisher would not let him publish three volumes--which is what he wanted to do--he just threw a lot of the material onto the CD.  Like about 900 pages. Plus its an oversized book. Who was going to go through all the stuff?

Well, I decided to.  I was really kind of stunned when I got through at how derivative, and how full of cheap invective and insult it was.  And how barren of new  material considering its length.

But when I looked at the critiques from our side, no one read the whole thing.  So I did.  I cannot say I am a better person for that. But I just felt someone had to do it.

Edited May 10, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Excuse me while I turn my head and upchuck after reading DiEugenio's anti-Bugliosi slop. ~yack~

With respect to the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders which Vince Bugliosi prosecuted in Los Angeles, CLICK HERE for a brief glimpse at some of the preposterous things that Mr. DiEugenio endorses concerning that murder case.

Replaying some previous Internet discussions concerning Vincent T. Bugliosi....

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID :

I...showed...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.

DVP SAID (IN JULY 2015) :

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 conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi's book) -- 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 conspiracists 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 conspiracy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it.

------------------------

DVP SAID (ON JULY 10, 2015) :

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 May 10, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Davey, do you mind answering the question you so in artfully posed and then dodged?

 

Why did he say it in the first place then?

Edited May 10, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

52 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Why did he say it in the first place then?

I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer popping up out of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".

For example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on his head. Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nutty conspiracy theory could be explored in-depth and debunked individually to the satisfaction of CTers. (What could ever "satisfy" a CTer anyway? I know of nothing that could accomplish that task.)

Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim, put your full support behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.

Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the equally-as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).

Edited May 10, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I, too, have a question for Vince Palamara (and I promise not to "derail" this Jim DiEugenio Lovefest Thread after this one question)....

Vince,

Can you give me just one single example of something that Lee Harvey Oswald did or said on either November 21st or November 22nd, 1963, that would indicate (even in a very small way) that he was involved in any kind of a conspiracy with any other person (or persons) with respect to the assassination of JFK or the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit?

Thank you.

The movie theater meeting point like when David Atlee Phillips would meet at movie theaters and exchange the torn half of a dollar bill with matching sides?

 

 

The partially torn $1 bill found in the wallet could have been saved for the purpose of tearing it completely and giving a portion to somebody else.

 

 

All three reported cases of "half bills" or partially torn bills have odd three-digit numbers written on them.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[James DiEugenio]

nice one micah

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

nice one micah

Actually, it's utter silliness, Micah. It's a desperate attempt by a CTer to add an element of perceived "conspiracy" into the JFK murder case. But the partially torn dollar bill means (and, more importantly, PROVES) nothing.