How Kooky was Vincent Bugliosi ?

[Gerry Down]

7 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Funny how you apply one standard to Bugliosi and another to Lee Harvey Oswald.

You cringe at the thought of a book critical of a subject being published after its subject is dead.

But Oswald was dead when the FBI's summary report named him as President Kennedy's assassin. 

You don't have any problem with that, do you ?

You cry unfair that Bugliosi didn't have the opportunity to refute accusations against him, like his denial would somehow convince you of his innocence.

While at the same time you still don't believe Oswald, who DID refute ( quite emphatically ) the accusations against him.

So what's up with this double standard of yours ?

No double standard. I don't mind any book being written as long as it tells the truth about the subject matter.

I just find it odd that the author of the Bugliosi book waited until Bugliosi was dead to release it. He had plenty time to release it while Bugliosi was alive.

The WC did not have plenty time to release their report while LHO was alive, as he was dead before the WC was even conceived. That's called a difference, not a double standard.

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

When he is guilty of :

abusing the power of his office
falsification of evidence
perjury in his sworn depositions
complicity in the obstruction of justice
slander of innocent people

What does it say about the man's credibility ?

Sounds like you're describing Jim Garrison.

[John Cotter]

31 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

No double standard. I don't mind any book being written as long as it tells the truth about the subject matter.

I just find it odd that the author of the Bugliosi book waited until Bugliosi was dead to release it. He had plenty time to release it while Bugliosi was alive.

The WC did not have plenty time to release their report while LHO was alive, as he was dead before the WC was even conceived. That's called a difference, not a double standard.

Please don't be repeating stuff that Tom Gram has already rebutted upthread.

[John Cotter]

31 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Sounds like you're describing Jim Garrison.

Disruptive whataboutery. Please give it a rest.

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

No double standard. I don't mind any book being written as long as it tells the truth about the subject matter.

I just find it odd that the author of the Bugliosi book waited until Bugliosi was dead to release it. He had plenty time to release it while Bugliosi was alive.

The WC did not have plenty time to release their report while LHO was alive, as he was dead before the WC was even conceived. That's called a difference, not a double standard.

I never said anything about the Warren Commission .

Who said anything about the Warren Commission ?

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Tom Gram]

32 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

No double standard. I don't mind any book being written as long as it tells the truth about the subject matter.

I just find it odd that the author of the Bugliosi book waited until Bugliosi was dead to release it. He had plenty time to release it while Bugliosi was alive.

The WC did not have plenty time to release their report while LHO was alive, as he was dead before the WC was even conceived. That's called a difference, not a double standard.

O’Neill gave Bugliosi every opportunity to explain himself over the course of several years of research, got Bugliosi on the record multiple times through email and on tape, and published his responses verbatim. The idea that O’Neill deliberately delayed publishing his book because he was afraid to confront Bugliosi is ridiculous. 

Is it possible that O’Neill’s publisher had concerns about having to deal with B.S. lawsuits from Bugliosi? Sure, but there is no evidence that lawsuit concerns had anything to do with the publishing date and O’Neill did his due diligence and dealt with Bugliosi while he was alive like a responsible journalist. You should read the book, and the document Robbie posted, before jumping to conclusions and insinuating that something is amiss here. The evidence for Bugliosi’s misconduct is conclusive. 

Also, if you’re defending Bugliosi strictly on the basis that his JFK book “tells the truth about the subject matter”, Pat Speer’s analysis might be worth adding to the Vince B. reading list: 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter19bvincentbistherealoliverstone

Let’s not forget that Bugliosi was an RFK conspiracy theorist, and advocated effectively for conspiracy in that case in court. If Bugliosi never wrote Reclaiming History, the same group of people defending him now would be frothing at the mouth and shouting every item of evidence presented by O’Neill from the hilltops to impugn his credibility. Bias is a funny thing sometimes. 

[Michael Davidson]

He was dafter than a box of lights 

[Gerry Down]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

O’Neill gave Bugliosi every opportunity to explain himself over the course of several years of research, got Bugliosi on the record multiple times through email and on tape, and published his responses verbatim. The idea that O’Neill deliberately delayed publishing his book because he was afraid to confront Bugliosi is ridiculous. 

Is it possible that O’Neill’s publisher had concerns about having to deal with B.S. lawsuits from Bugliosi? Sure, but there is no evidence that lawsuit concerns had anything to do with the publishing date and O’Neill did his due diligence and dealt with Bugliosi while he was alive like a responsible journalist. You should read the book, and the document Robbie posted, before jumping to conclusions and insinuating that something is amiss here. The evidence for Bugliosi’s misconduct is conclusive. 

Also, if you’re defending Bugliosi strictly on the basis that his JFK book “tells the truth about the subject matter”, Pat Speer’s analysis might be worth adding to the Vince B. reading list: 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter19bvincentbistherealoliverstone

Let’s not forget that Bugliosi was an RFK conspiracy theorist, and advocated effectively for conspiracy in that case in court. If Bugliosi never wrote Reclaiming History, the same group of people defending him now would be frothing at the mouth and shouting every item of evidence presented by O’Neill from the hilltops to impugn his credibility. Bias is a funny thing sometimes. 

Personally I don't care about a researchers private life because whether they are a saint or a sinner, it doesn't add to any hard facts they might present in a book.

I only care about the facts they present in a non-fiction book like Reclaiming History. I don't agree with everything in that book but he does present some parts of the case well. 

This whole thread seems like a pointless ad hominem attack on Bugliosi. Even if Bugliosi was Hitler it doesn't make any facts he presents less factual.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Gerry Down

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

If Bugliosi never wrote Reclaiming History, the same group of people defending him now would be frothing at the mouth and shouting every item of evidence presented by O’Neill from the hilltops to impugn his credibility. 

Which is an excellent point.

If Bugliosi had written a conspiracy book, O'Neill would be the new darling boy of the Lone Nut group.

[Bob Ness]

21 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Oh ok, I didn't realize that. 

Seriously. Read the lawyer's report @Robbie Robertson posted. Complete with documents and the whole nine yards. I haven't read all of it but after a few pages you'll see what I mean.

[Gerry Down]

1 minute ago, Bob Ness said:

Seriously. Read the lawyer's report @Robbie Robertson posted. Complete with documents and the whole nine yards. I haven't read all of it but after a few pages you'll see what I mean.

How does this change any facts Bugliosi might present in the JFK case?

Facts are facts. A person's private life doesn't change those facts.

[Bob Ness]

4 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

How does this change any facts Bugliosi might present in the JFK case?

Facts are facts. A person's private life doesn't change those facts.

It impugns his credibility in as much it shows he was more than willing and in fact initiated false claims against innocent people for whatever his reasons are. His personal failings clearly effected his professional life and as such can't easily be cast aside when determining the veracity of his product whether it be a book or a prosecution. He used the instruments of his office to harass an innocent man due to some sort of hyperparanoia and later used those instruments to not only to intimidate a woman into providing false depositions retracting her claims but repeated them in attempts at coercion using the civil justice system. 

It's despicable and calls into question just about everything.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Gerry Down]

Just now, Bob Ness said:

It impugns his credibility in as much it shows he was more than willing and in fact initiated false claims against innocent people for whatever his reasons are. His personal failings clearly effected his professional life and as such can't easily be cast aside when determining the veracity of his product whether it be a book or a prosecution.

When I read a book, I separate the authors credentials and/or private life out from the facts they present in the book and I check those facts independently for their correctness.

For that reason I find ad hominem attacks against any author mind numbingly pointless.

[Bob Ness]

Just now, Gerry Down said:

When I read a book, I separate the authors credentials and/or private life out from the facts they present in the book and I check those facts independently for their correctness.

For that reason I find ad hominem attacks against any author mind numbingly pointless.

Added:

He used the instruments of his office to harass an innocent man due to some sort of hyperparanoia and later used those instruments to not only to intimidate a woman into providing false depositions retracting her claims but repeated them in attempts at coercion using the civil justice system. 

It's despicable and calls into question just about everything.

[Bob Ness]

1 minute ago, Gerry Down said:

When I read a book, I separate the authors credentials and/or private life out from the facts they present in the book and I check those facts independently for their correctness.

For that reason I find ad hominem attacks against any author mind numbingly pointless.

It's not unfair to direct "ad hominem" if in fact the credibility and honesty of the person directly impacts the information they are advancing as ""facts".