Jump to content
The Education Forum

A New Verb-- to 'bugliose'


Recommended Posts

When everyone sees my article on Chaos, you will witness a side to Bugliosi that has been hidden.  No one on our side that I know of ever did these kinds of things.  And I know the scene very well.

Bugliosi should have been disbarred, plain and simple. The ends do not justify the means.  Especially when the ends concern personal aggrandizement.

And I guarantee that no one on the other side will touch this stuff.  Know why?  Because they agree with him: the ends justify the means.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 8/2/2019 at 12:26 AM, David Von Pein said:

Just think "Mark Lane" and "Jim Garrison" and "Jim Fetzer", for starters. Three of the greatest bamboozlers of all-time.

For starters, sure.

Their combined contribution to a sensible, coherent and cohesive explanation for the events of 22 November 1963 that differs from 'The Bleeding Obvious' theory (as tend to call it) amounts to nothing. Absolutely nothing. Paradoxically, these people garner a great deal of respect in the conspiracy community. How come? 🤔

Vincent Bugliosi, as far as I can tell, and certainly with respect to the JFK assassination, allowed the facts to lead to an inescapable conclusion, much as the Warren Commission did. If you watch The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald, you can really appreciate this rather straightforward and common-sense technique. Gerry Spence, bereft of facts and hard physical evidence to support his stance, had no choice but to resort to conjecture, supposition and a warping of basic physical law to attempt to sway the jury. There, in a nutshell, is the difference between a 'lone nutter' and a conspiracy theorist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

For starters, sure.

Their combined contribution to a sensible, coherent and cohesive explanation for the events of 22 November 1963 that differs from 'The Bleeding Obvious' theory (as tend to call it) amounts to nothing. Absolutely nothing. Paradoxically, these people garner a great deal of respect in the conspiracy community. How come? 🤔

Vincent Bugliosi, as far as I can tell, and certainly with respect to the JFK assassination, allowed the facts to lead to an inescapable conclusion, much as the Warren Commission did. If you watch The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald, you can really appreciate this rather straightforward and common-sense technique. Gerry Spence, bereft of facts and hard physical evidence to support his stance, had no choice but to resort to conjecture, supposition and a warping of basic physical law to attempt to sway the jury. There, in a nutshell, is the difference between a 'lone nutter' and a conspiracy theorist.

Geez, Paul... You, obviously, haven't studied James DiEugenio's systematic, step-by-step demolition of Vincent Bugliosi's fraudulent defense of the Warren Commission.

How much more detail do you need?

What is this, Intellectual Dishonesty Day at the Education Forum?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP and Paul are utterly hilarious are they not? There is nothing like pure ignorance.

Look, when everyone  reads my review you will have even more egg on your faces, in addition to the couple of omelets that are already there. 

O'Neill's book is devastating about Bugliosi.  I will say it again: VB should have been disbarred.  And BTW, I would say the same if VInce was alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

DVP and Paul are utterly hilarious are they not? There is nothing like pure ignorance.

Look, when everyone  reads my review you will have even more egg on your faces, in addition to the couple of omelets that are already there. 

O'Neill's book is devastating about Bugliosi.  I will say it again: VB should have been disbarred.  And BTW, I would say the same if VInce was alive.

Have you read Bugliosi's bio on Wikipedia?

It's like something Stalin's propagandists would have written about a heroic Soviet prosecutor at his show trials.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WN:

Does the Wiki entry include his stalking of his milkman because he thought the guy impregnated his wife and was the real father of his son?  This was false and his wife thought he was sick and should go to a doctor. Bugliosi was forced to settle a lawsuit by the plaintiffs.

Does it include him impregnating his girlfriend and then giving her money for an abortion? When she did not get it, he went to her apartment and beat her up. He then tried to get her to lie about what happened in order to cover up what he had done. Is that there?

Its not on DVP's site either.

I had previously discounted these.  But after reading Tom's book, I think I was wrong to do so.  Bugliosi was so guarded about what he did to ensure that no one would find out his methods in the Tate/LaBianca case that he called a local reporter who was prepping an expose on him.  He then told her that unless she stopped, he knew where her kids went to school and he could easily have drugs planted in their lockers. Is that in there?

And that's just for starters.  After this book, I can see now that those other incidents were not outliers.  That it was part of a carefully constructed veneer.  And Bugliosi kept it intact by threats of lawsuits, or worse, if it were exposed.  

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

WN:

Does the Wiki entry include his stalking of his milkman because he thought the guy impregnated his wife and was the real father of his son?  This was false and his wife thought he was sick and should go to a doctor. Bugliosi was forced to settle a lawsuit by the plaintiffs.

Does it include him impregnating his girlfriend and then giving her money for an abortion? When she did not get it, he went to her apartment and beat her up. He then tried to get her to lie about what happened in order to cover up what he had done. Is that there?

Its not on DVP's site either.

I had previously discounted these.  But after reading Tom's book, I think I was wrong to do so.  Bugliosi was go guarded about what he did to ensure that no one would find out what he did in the Tate/LaBianca case that he called a local reporter who was prepping an expose on him.  He then told her that unless she stopped, he knew where her kids went to school and he could easily have drugs planted in their lockers. Is that in there?

And that's just for starters.  After this book, I can see now that those other incidents were not outliers.  That it was part of a carefully constructed veneer.  And Bugliosi kept it intact by threats of lawsuits, or worse, if it were exposed.  

 

Are these stories about Bugs something you heard in private or is it something that can be found digging around online? I’m curious what else is out there about him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first two stories are available online.  They came out during Bugliosi's attempts to gain political office through an attorney who represented the woman he beat up. I think his name was George Denny.  The publication of these incidents were  damaging to VB's political ambitions.

The third instance, with the threat to place drugs in the children's lockers, is in the O'Neill book.

To give VB his due, he should get credit for his efforts in the RFK case.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

WN:

Does the Wiki entry include his stalking of his milkman because he thought the guy impregnated his wife and was the real father of his son?  This was false and his wife thought he was sick and should go to a doctor. Bugliosi was forced to settle a lawsuit by the plaintiffs.

Does it include him impregnating his girlfriend and then giving her money for an abortion? When she did not get it, he went to her apartment and beat her up. He then tried to get her to lie about what happened in order to cover up what he had done. Is that there?

Its not on DVP's site either.

I had previously discounted these.  But after reading Tom's book, I think I was wrong to do so.  Bugliosi was so guarded about what he did to ensure that no one would find out his methods in the Tate/LaBianca case that he called a local reporter who was prepping an expose on him.  He then told her that unless she stopped, he knew where her kids went to school and he could easily have drugs planted in their lockers. Is that in there?

And that's just for starters.  After this book, I can see now that those other incidents were not outliers.  That it was part of a carefully constructed veneer.  And Bugliosi kept it intact by threats of lawsuits, or worse, if it were exposed.  

 

Wow.  Between here and the amazon reviews I've been considering ordering this.  Done deal tomorrow.  

Though a little different story, "Bug's" didn't go to Vietnam, it makes me wonder if he didn't inspire the Kentucky Head Hunters. Helluva guy to influence history so much, incorrectly.  Though I'm mainly wanting an objective picture on the Manson killings.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=kentucky+headhunters+milkman&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=fb47f5ec730f466287cb039c3bfe4bba&sp=1&qs=SC&pq=kentucky+head+hunters+milk&sc=1-26&cvid=fb47f5ec730f466287cb039c3bfe4bba

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now convinced there is no objective view of the Tate/LaBianca case.

Bugliosi and the DA's office so polluted the press and jury pool that there is no way to decipher what the true motive was.

They then  stuck the Clan with some of the worst and most compromised lawyers they could find.  I mean what Tom does with this Caballero guy is almost worth the price of his book. Others had suggested who he really was.  But Tom found new evidence that certifies and defines his role to a new extent. 

Bugliosi covers this up in his book.  As he needed to.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I am now convinced there is no objective view of the Tate/LaBianca case.

Bugliosi and the DA's office so polluted the press and jury pool that there is no way to decipher what the true motive was.

They then  stuck the Clan with some of the worst and most compromised lawyers they could find.  I mean what Tom does with this Caballero guy is almost worth the price of his book. Others had suggested who he really was.  But Tom found new evidence that certifies and defines his role to a new extent. 

Bugliosi covers this up in his book.  As he needed to.

 

Was someone behind Bugliosi at that point or was it egotistical self promotion on his part?  He did later promote the official JFK assassination theory, as you've well demonstrated. 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez, Paul... You, obviously, haven't studied James DiEugenio's systematic, step-by-step demolition of Vincent Bugliosi's fraudulent defense of the Warren Commission.

I've read it. It is far from a systematic, step-by-step demolition. Mostly nit-picking and fallacious argument as far as I recall, whilst largely ignoring the pertinent evidence. Typical DiEugenio fare. Reading it makes you itch. Distil off the flimflam and you're left with nothing. He gets obsessed about Oswald not being able to post a mail order within a certain timeframe (as I recall). I remember the time that Jim reasoned on here that Oswald couldn't have done it because he only had four bullets, and gun shops don't sell bullets in that quantity. Jeez, it wouldn't take much of an attorney to undermine that particular argument, would it?

 

Edited by Paul Baker
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Does the Wiki entry include his stalking of his milkman because he thought the guy impregnated his wife and was the real father of his son?  This was false and his wife thought he was sick and should go to a doctor. Bugliosi was forced to settle a lawsuit by the plaintiffs.

Does it include him impregnating his girlfriend and then giving her money for an abortion? When she did not get it, he went to her apartment and beat her up. He then tried to get her to lie about what happened in order to cover up what he had done. Is that there?

Is this part of your systematic, step-by-step demolition of Vincent Bugliosi's fraudulent defense of the Warren Commission? Typical DiEugenio fare.

When are you going to get your own wiki page, Jim? I'd love to make a contribution. I'll write the section on the debate you had with John McAdams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...