Bugliosi's Purpose

[William Kelly]

Bugliosi in Reclaiming History (p. 1461) :

"...Not one bullet other than the three fired from Oswald's rifle has ever been found and linked to the assassintion. No person other than Oswald has ever been connected by evidence, in any way, to the assassintion. No evidence has ever sufaced linking Oswald to any of the major groups suggested by conspiracy theorists of being behind the assassination. And no evidence has ever been found showing that any person or group framed Oswald for the murder they committed."

"One would think that faced with these stubborn and immutable realities, the critics of the Warren Commission, unable to pay the piper, would finally fold their tent and go home. ZBut instead, undaunted and unafazed, they continue to disgorge even more of what we have had from them for over forty years - wild speculation, theorizing, and shameless dissembling about the facts of the case."

"The purpose of this book has been twofold, to educate everyday Americans that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone, PAYING FOR HIS OWN BULLETS. And two, to expose, as never before, the conspiracy theorists and the abject worthlessness of all their allegatons."

"I believe this book has acieved both ends."

End of book.

[Emphasis added]

In that case, I believe that everyday Americans won't even read Bugliosi's book, and that in questioning his own concluding statement that "Oswald killed Kennedy, and acted alone, paying for his own bullets,...", it conclusively be demonstrated to be false, and that all of his other arguments and conclusions come similarly unravelled.

Please Mr. Bugliosi, refer us to the source for the unsubstantiated fact that Oswald not only acted alone, but did so "paying for his own bullets."

There is not, as far as I know, one witness or one document that indicates when, how, and from whom Lee Harvey Oswald purchased the four known bullets attributed to him, let alone how much he paid for them.

I would hope that anyone who ever has the opportunity to personally question Mr. Bugliosi asks him that one question.

BK

Edited May 28, 2007 by William Kelly

[Jack White]

Bill...Does the Bug mention the work of John Armstrong?

Jack

[Dawn Meredith]

Bill...Does the Bug mention the work of John Armstrong?

Jack

Why would he? Armstrong's work is proof of two Oswalds-something the Bug would never acknowledge.

But not having the book- and would not waste the $- someone who does can check the index.

Dawn

[Michael Hogan]

Bill...Does the Bug mention the work of John Armstrong?

Not to answer for Bill, but since that area is an interest of mine....Bugliosi includes a chapter entitled The Second Oswald. On the first page of the chapter he writes:

The leading current proponent of the Second Oswald Theory, which has a considerable number of adherents, is John Armstrong, a well-to-do contractor and oilman from Tulsa, Oklahoma, who is convinced that another Lee Harvey Oswald started impersonating the real one when Oswald was only thirteen. He cites as evidence a December 11th, 1963 letter to President Johnson from a lady named Alma Cole, who claimed that her son befriended Oswald in Stanley, North Dakota, sometime in the 1950s, (her son later provided hte year as 1953, when we know Oswald was living with his mother in New York City) and told her Oswald was reading "Communist books" and said he "had a calling to kill the president." Can you imagine that?

Bugliosi spends one page attempting to discredit the North Dakota story. He addresses no more of Armstrong's findings until page 1041. I know you'll like this reference, Jack:

When I met with Second Oswald proponent John Armstrong in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on January 21, 1994, he assured me he had photographic evidence of two separate and distinct humans, one the real Oswald, the other an imposter. Armstrong proceeded to send me a collage of sixty photographs, claiming the "two" Oswalds were represented therein. However the HSCA employed forensic pathologists to analyze and compare photos of Oswald from the time he was in the Marines (which was before he went to Russia) until the assassination, and they concluded that all the photographs were "consistent with those of a single individual" and there were "no biological inconsistencies in the Oswald photographs that would support the theory that a second person, or double, was involved. The variation observed is that expected in an array of photographs taken by different cameras with varying lens, camera angles, lighting, and other technical differences." The HSCA could have added that the photos the experts examined were taken between 1956 and 1963, a seven-year period, and people's appearances to tend to naturally change over time.

Bugliosi devotes time to Popkin and Eddowes and others in this chapter, but the above represents his only two references to John Armstrong and his findings.

I looked in vain for your name in the index Jack. It wasn't there. I reckon it should have been.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[William Kelly]

Bill...Does the Bug mention the work of John Armstrong?

Jack

Indeed he does, Jack,

Index: Armstrong, John. pages 1021-1022; 1041; notes p. 360n; 365n; 548n; 565n-79n.

While all the notes are on CD, 1021 is the begining of the chapter on The Second Oswald.

"...The leading current proponent of the Second Oswald theory,* which has a considerable number of adherents, is John Armstrong, a well-to-do contractor and oilman from Tulsa, Oklahoma, who is convinced that another Lee Harvey Oswald started imperonating the real one when Oswald was only thirteen. He cites as evidence a Decmber 11, 1963, letter to President Lyndon Johnson from a lady named Alma Cole, who claimed that her son befriended Oswald in Stanley, North Dakota, sometime in the 1950s (her son later provided the year 1953, when we know Oswald was living with his mother in New York City) and told him that Oswald was reading 'Communist books' and said he 'had a calling to kill the president.' (1) Can you imagine that? Oswald is only thirteen and living in New York City, and already, conspirators have set out to frame him for 'some' murder they intend to commit, and they stata out by sending a teenage Oswald impersonator to Stanley, North Dakota, to tell his young friend about his plans to kill a president someday. If that's not crazy enough, where his life owujld take him so he could even be in a position to be framed, as opposed, say, to be an ornitholoigst studying obscure birds in the jungles of Bolivia, or a doctor at a clinic in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Armstrong doesn't day."

He then goes on to quote some people from Stanley who don't recall Oswald and to say Cole was mental.

[Note* The first conspiracy theorist to raise the issue of impersonation was Leo Sauvage in an article in Commentary in the spring of 1964. The Warren Commission treated all of the unlikely or impossible Oswald sightings as either cases of mistaken identity or deliberate falsehoods.]

1041:

"...When I met with Second Oswald proponent John Armstrong in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Jan. 21, 1994, he assurd me he had photographic evidence of two separate and distinct humans, one the real Oswald, the other an imposter. Armstrong proceeded to send me a collage of sixty photographs, claiming the 'two' Oswalds were represented therein....."

The HSCA proved that not to be the case is the rest of his analysis there.

I will check out the CD later and let you know what it says.

And Jack, you have the honor of getting even more references than Armstrong, and are hearby classified as an "assassination buff" and the "looney Jack White."

Bugliosi is more kind to John Judge, who he talked with on the phone once, and doesn't bother disparaging and for some reason, describes COPA somewhat accurately.

When I saw Bill Kelly in the Index, I got real excited and hoped he would at least call me a CT, assassination buff, looney or just call me, but I guess I don't rate. Instead it is a reference to my namesake and nemesis, former FBI Tampa agent Bill Kelly of the Tamali Squad.

Bugliosi loves this BK, who was assigned to keep tabs on the Cubans in Tampa, even though neither he nor his partner speak Spanish and come across as the Toody & Muldoon of Tampa.

And Jack, don't buy the book. It isn't worth it.

I'll send you the other references you are interested in when I have more time.

You should join the choir in response to his blatently disparaging remarks about you and use the opportunity to show your Oswald photos and let the viewer decide for himself rather than take the Bug's opinion.

BK

[Michael Hogan]

Why would he? Armstrong's work is proof of two Oswalds-something the Bug would never acknowledge.

But not having the book- and would not waste the $- someone who does can check the index.

Speaking only for myself, I feel like Bugliosi's book is important to read. There is a lot of information contained within that is interesting, irrespective of Bugliosi's tortured conclusions. I have no respect for him or his methodology. I had mixed feelings in purchasing the book, allowing him even the smallest measure of profit.

However, I decided that this book, along with Talbot's and Larry Hancock's have the potential to revive debate in the media. When Posner wrote Case Closed, the internet was in its infancy. Today's communications climate is much different and I actually harbor hope that Reclaiming History will gain little traction in media circles in the coming years.

It will be thoroughly discredited, because like Posner, Bugliosi was predisposed to a conclusion he inevitably would be unable to defend. He attempted to make the "evidence" fit a theory that is untenable and his project was doomed from its inception. The ink on his book is barely dry and already knowledgable and eloquent researchers are demonstrating the shortcomings and duplicity in his logic.

Like Case Closed, one day Reclaiming History is destined to be found in the remainder bins at bookstores, available as a curiosity piece for a few dollars.

If the debate about President Kennedy's murder does experience a revival, as some have suggested it will, I would love to see Larry Hancock refute or even debate Bugliosi in the national media. Even with Bugliosi's considerable prosecutorial skills, he would be no match for Larry's knowledge and insight.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks for the kind words Mike, I have to admit that I'm not reading Bugliosi although I am following posts

on his book. One of the things that bothers me is that he seems to have broken with some of the

investigative instincts he used earlier in his career. For example he has unkind remarks in his Manson

book for several LAPD detectives who did not do their homework throughly enough and settled for easy,

pat reports...he points out that he had to tell them to dig further. He also recounts key Manson witnesses

that were initially rejected for minor inconsistencies or because pieces of the big picture were missing. He

also points out the mistakes Wolfer, their criminalist, made in evidence evaluation - but that was only

visible when confessions of the parties involved were actually made.

He seems to bring nothing of this perspective to his JFK work, relying on assertions and sarcasm (along

with his name) to carry the day. He apparently feels that Martino was hallucinating in his remarks which

were taken to the HSCA, because of illness. Yet he did not confirm any aspects of Martino's health

at that time with the family (I have; he wasn't and indeed was still making business trips to Guatemala,

explaining why he was in touch with his business partner to make the remarks he made). The he ties up

the package with reference to Matino saying he had seen Oswald in Miami...when Oswald was supposed to

be in Dallas. Of course numerous people placed Oswald in Miami..that was part of the set up to pitch him being

in contact with Castro and Castro agents. From Buglio's viewpoint it allows him to discard Martino; with a fuller

view to what was going on it can actually be seen as corroboration.

I don't flatter myself in thinking I could successfully debate an experienced criminal court lawyer - but I think

I could fall out on a position that John Newman has used in similar situations - he simply points out to the LN

party that they don't have a full knowledge of all the relevant facts - and they will not find it in the material offered

to the WC. Making an arguement on WC data is circular. Making an arguement based on the FBI investigation is also

circular since it was ordered to focus on convincing the public that Oswald acted as a lone nut and had no

connections to anyone else. End of story.

-- Larry

[Michael Hogan]

I looked in vain for your name in the index Jack. It wasn't there. I reckon it should have been.

Apologies in spades, Jack. After reading Bill K's post, I went back and checked. You are in there a lot, as you should be.

You're one of my heroes in this case Jack. You always will be.

[Charles Drago]

The purposes of Bugliosi's book are many.

I'll focus on one that I've indicated on other threads: His targets of opportunity are future generations who will be encouraged to believe that the conspiracy and LN positions are equally worthy of consideration. Thus the conspirators' most effective and long-lived shield -- the false mystery -- will endure.

Even more succinctly: His target is history.

The only moral response is to treat him with contempt. We must not be content with exposing the massive fraud that is his "masterwork." The job will not be complete until we expose the greater agenda.

We must not allow the rape of history. There never has been a legitimate case for the LN. It was a lie from day one. We "debate" its pimps at our own peril.

Charles

[William O'Neil]

Bugliosi in Reclaiming History (p. 1461) :

"...Not one bullet other than the three fired from Oswald's rifle has ever been found and linked to the assassintion. No person other than Oswald has ever been connected by evidence, in any way, to the assassintion. No evidence has ever sufaced linking Oswald to any of the major groups suggested by conspiracy theorists of being behind the assassination. And no evidence has ever been found showing that any person or group framed Oswald for the murder they committed."

"One would think that faced with these stubborn and immutable realities, the critics of the Warren Commission, unable to pay the piper, would finally fold their tent and go home. ZBut instead, undaunted and unafazed, they continue to disgorge even more of what we have had from them for over forty years - wild speculation, theorizing, and shameless dissembling about the facts of the case."

"The purpose of this book has been twofold, to educate everyday Americans that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone, PAYING FOR HIS OWN BULLETS. And two, to expose, as never before, the conspiracy theorists and the abject worthlessness of all their allegatons."

"I believe this book has acieved both ends."

End of book.

[Emphasis added]

In that case, I believe that everyday Americans won't even read Bugliosi's book, and that in questioning his own concluding statement that "Oswald killed Kennedy, and acted alone, paying for his own bullets,...", it conclusively be demonstrated to be false, and that all of his other arguments and conclusions come similarly unravelled.

Please Mr. Bugliosi, refer us to the source for the unsubstantiated fact that Oswald not only acted alone, but did so "paying for his own bullets."

There is not, as far as I know, one witness or one document that indicates when, how, and from whom Lee Harvey Oswald purchased the four known bullets attributed to him, let alone how much he paid for them.

I would hope that anyone who ever has the opportunity to personally question Mr. Bugliosi asks him that one question.

BK

I think the FBI and the SS would have a tough time agreeing with Vince , since they went all-out to try and find a source for Oswalds ammo, with zero luck. Mind telling us now Vince, just were Os "paid for his own bullets". Oh, and just curious , how much did he plunk down for em'??? And he accuses us of making stuff up!

[Charles Drago]

Bugliosi and his ilk deserve not the slightest benefit of the doubt.

But let's not waste ammunition on semantical targets.

(Remember how, in Fail Safe, the Soviet air defense commander chooses to attack a decoy bomber, thus allowing the hydrogen bomb attack on Moscow to succeed?)

Bugliosi is trying -- and failing -- to be cute. He might have added, in the same spirit: ... and bought the cloth that cleaned the oil that didn't stain the bag that hid the weapon ...

We're talking rhetorical blather here, folks.

Charles

[William Kelly]

Bill...Does the Bug mention the work of John Armstrong?

Jack

Jack,

Besides disparangingly refering to you as an "assassination buff," "conspiracy theorists" and "looney," Bella Lagosi also credits you and Jim Marrs with the founding of the Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination - CTKA, which I believe is incorrect. CTKA was founded by Jim DiEugenio and others - and included Lisa Pease and published Probe.

Perhaps we should start a History Reclaimed Erata list of factual mistakes that should be corrected in future editions?

BK

[Jack White]

Bill...Does the Bug mention the work of John Armstrong?

Jack

Jack,

Besides disparangingly refering to you as an "assassination buff," "conspiracy theorists" and "looney," Bella Lagosi also credits you and Jim Marrs with the founding of the Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination - CTKA, which I believe is incorrect. CTKA was founded by Jim DiEugenio and others - and included Lisa Pease and published Probe.

Perhaps we should start a History Reclaimed Erata list of factual mistakes that should be corrected in future editions?

BK

Correct. Jim and Lisa asked me to appear on their letterhead as an advisor or some such.

Same with COPA. Cyril Wecht asked to list me.

Jack

[Jack White]

Bill...Does the Bug mention the work of John Armstrong?

Jack

Jack,

Besides disparangingly refering to you as an "assassination buff," "conspiracy theorists" and "looney," Bella Lagosi also credits you and Jim Marrs with the founding of the Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination - CTKA, which I believe is incorrect. CTKA was founded by Jim DiEugenio and others - and included Lisa Pease and published Probe.

Perhaps we should start a History Reclaimed Erata list of factual mistakes that should be corrected in future editions?

BK

Correct. Jim and Lisa asked me to appear on their letterhead as an advisor or some such.

Same with COPA. Cyril Wecht asked to list me.

Jack

[Stephen Miller]

True, Reclaiming History is nothing more than a prosecutor's brief like Case Closed. This was to be expected from the Bug, who was trained as a prosecutor and worked as one, of course. But he has not done any actual criminal trials in Lord knows how many years and like his fellow one-time prosecutor Posner, the Bug is more attracted to the "entertainment" side of criminal law by writing books and appearing on TV for $$$$$$$.

Nuff said?