Jump to content
The Education Forum

Vincent Bugliosi weighs in on JFK assassination


Recommended Posts

This all gets PRECISELY to my main point.

If I were allowed to make just one contribution to our efforts, it would be to impress upon all of us the significance of the following: Constantly, eloquently, powerfully, courageously, brilliantly, and righteously differentiate between the "how" and "who/why" of the assassination.

All of Bugliosi's pontifications on the nature of the conspiratorial mindset -- like all other psychobabble introduced into this investigation in order to stall it -- simply cannot be brought to bear on the scientific examinations of the "how" that have led to discovery of the conspiratorial truth.

The classic example, for me at least, is that old chestnut, "People believe in conspiracy because they can't accept that a pathetic little man struck down a great man."

What the hell does that have to do with unassailable forensic, medical, eyewitness, earwitness, photographic, and circumstantial evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt and to the level of metaphysical certitude conspiracy in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

We must not allow Bugliosi and his ilk to get away with this. The conflation of the "how" and "who/why" issues is all they've got.

It's that simple.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Every time a newspaper, magazine or web site publishes a review or story about Bugliosi and his book gives everyone the opportunity to publish a response, letter to the editor and/or correction ombudsman.

Bugliosi knows that a real homicide investigation of this crime would begin with a multi-agency Task Force and a compilation of evidence of crimes to present to a grand jury, and not weigh the pros and cons of various theories, conspiracy or otherwise.

But then he choses not to proceed according to the proper procedure and therefore fails to be believable or convincing.

Every publication that prints his junk should also print some reasonable response.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is a link to the RECLAIMING HISTORY website which allows us a free read of the Introduction and a chapter about "Delusions of Conspiracy"

It struck me, on scanning these two sections, that there is something almost frantic about Bugliosi's efforts to convince us that the Warren Commission was right all along, and that conspiracy theorists "have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations."

Bugliosi devotes much space to castigating conspiracy writers for twisting and misrepresenting evidence, yet on page XXIV of the Introduction we find this lynchpin of his case:

Ruth Paine "testified to Oswald's storing the murder weapon on the garage floor of her home"

It is a long time since I read Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony or watched the Showtime/LWT trial which Bugliosi took part in, but I will eat my hat if Bugliosi or anyone else can demonstrate that Ruth Paine ever "testified to Oswald's storing the murder weapon on the garage floor of her home"

Not a very auspicious beginning for a prosecutor to commit a big howler in his opening statement, but I am sure Mr. B. is not deliberately lying; most likely he is simply journeying to the outer margins of his imagination.

http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=11

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is a link to the RECLAIMING HISTORY website which allows us a free read of the Introduction and a chapter about "Delusions of Conspiracy"

It struck me, on scanning these two sections, that there is something almost frantic about Bugliosi's efforts to convince us that the Warren Commission was right all along, and that conspiracy theorists "have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations."

Bugliosi devotes much space to castigating conspiracy writers for twisting and misrepresenting evidence....

http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=11

From the introduction:

Ninety-nine percent of the conspiracy community are not, of course, writers and authors. These conspiracy "buffs" (as they are frequently called) are obsessed with the assassination, have formed networks among their peers, and actually attend conspiracy-oriented conventions around the country. Though most of them are as kooky as a three-dollar bill in their beliefs and paranoia about the assassination, it is my sense that their motivations are patriotic and that they are sincere in their misguided and uninformed conclusions. I cannot say that about the conspiracy authors.....

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is a link to the RECLAIMING HISTORY website which allows us a free read of the Introduction and a chapter about "Delusions of Conspiracy"

It struck me, on scanning these two sections, that there is something almost frantic about Bugliosi's efforts to convince us that the Warren Commission was right all along, and that conspiracy theorists "have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations."

Bugliosi devotes much space to castigating conspiracy writers for twisting and misrepresenting evidence, yet on page XXIV of the Introduction we find this lynchpin of his case:

Ruth Paine "testified to Oswald's storing the murder weapon on the garage floor of her home"

It is a long time since I read Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony or watched the Showtime/LWT trial which Bugliosi took part in, but I will eat my hat if Bugliosi or anyone else can demonstrate that Ruth Paine ever "testified to Oswald's storing the murder weapon on the garage floor of her home"

Not a very auspicious beginning for a prosecutor to commit a big howler in his opening statement, but I am sure Mr. B. is not deliberately lying; most likely he is simply journeying to the outer margins of his imagination.

http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=11

JRC,

It's quite true that Ruth Paine never testified that she knew LHO stored the rifle in her garage, even though she drove the rifle to and from New Orleans on two occassions and with her husband Michael, unloaded the car and put the rifle in the garage. Michael testified that he didn't know about the rifle either, and said he thought the metal pipe in the blanket was camping equipment. Later he acknowledge knowing about the rifle from the photo of Oswald holding the gun which he saw when he picked up Oswald to take him back to his home for a dinner.

While I'll give the Bug the benefit of the doubt until I actually read the book, I don't expect much, especially since he takes the Lone-Nut vs. Conspiracy Theories approach, which he knows as a prosecutor is not the correct way to solve a homicide.

He can't write such a long winded tomb without telling us something new.

In looking at his chapter headings headings however, he has a whole section on the Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences, which are indeed coincidences, like 6 degrees of separation, a theoritical principle that holds true.

Which makes me think he's wasting a lot of time.

In any case, in accepting David Talbot's position and approach to the crime, those who make the best case for a lone assassin and place LHO in that situation, only supports the case for conspiracy and coup even if there was only one gunman.

This approach bypasses Posner, the Bug, et al, by accepting the possiblity of one assassin, and presenting the case for the assassin being a covert intelligence operative, part of a larger cell/network and focusing the research towards those who set up the Dealey Plaza situation/operation.

Those who claim Oswald was the lone shooter, also claim he was a lone-nut case, rather than the world-class assassin he was - if he did the deed alone.

Those who claim Oswald motivated by his own psychological qirks have closed the case on themselves, while those who know that Dealey Plaza was a covert intelligence operation, regardless of Oswald's role, can continue the research and discover the total truth.

Those who say we are wasting our time (Chompski) fail to realize that it is imperative that the true nature of the assassination be determined so as it never happens again.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite true that Ruth Paine never testified that she knew LHO stored the rifle in her garage, even though she drove the rifle to and from New Orleans on two occasions.

My recollection is that Ruth drove Lee with some of his belongings to catch the bus to New Orleans, and later drove down herself with Marina and June Lee. I don't think anyone has ever produced an inventory of exactly what went with whom. It strikes me that, for all we know, Lee put the rifle in a package in Dallas and mailed it to himself, care of general delivery, New Orleans.

Those who say we are wasting our time (Chomsky) fail to realize that it is imperative that the true nature of the assassination be determined so as it never happens again.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite true that Ruth Paine never testified that she knew LHO stored the rifle in her garage, even though she drove the rifle to and from New Orleans on two occasions.

My recollection is that Ruth drove Lee with some of his belongings to catch the bus to New Orleans, and later drove down herself with Marina and June Lee. I don't think anyone has ever produced an inventory of exactly what went with whom. It strikes me that, for all we know, Lee put the rifle in a package in Dallas and mailed it to himself, care of general delivery, New Orleans.

Those who say we are wasting our time (Chomsky) fail to realize that it is imperative that the true nature of the assassination be determined so as it never happens again.

BK

In my opinion, the myth of Oswald OWNING A RIFLE is part of the legend

created by those who framed him. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT HE ORDERED,

OWNED, POSSESSED OR FIRED A RIFLE.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the myth of Oswald OWNING A RIFLE is part of the legend

created by those who framed him. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT HE ORDERED,

OWNED, POSSESSED OR FIRED A RIFLE.

Jack

Jack,

I agree completely. Too many researchers now concede that Oswald owned that Mannlicher Carcano. There are so many questions about the p.o. box, the Hidell alias, etc., that simply aren't asked very often by anyone anymore. I've always found it transparently ridiculous for an aspiring assassin to order his murder weapon of choice (as well as the other murder weapon of choice, the pistol used in the Tippit slaying) via an easily traced post office box, when he could simply have walked into any gun store and purchased what he wanted anonymously. Imho, the whole Hidell as alias question is not given the attention it warrants by researchers. Was Hidell really an alias Oswald used? The best evidence against Hidell being his legitimate alias was the Select Service card, which was in Hidell's name but had Oswald's photo. As Peter Dale Scott pointed out, no one would use that for purposes of identification, because real Select Service cards carried no photograph. Since Oswald presumably would have had to know this, what other purpose could there have been in carying such a card? The conclusion is inescapable that the card was planted in order to further frame him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

It seems Bugliosi has made one big breakthrough: He demolishes Lee Oswald's explanation for his presence on the second floor when Baker encountered him.

QUOTE ON "If there was no second gunman, there was, Bugliosi proves, a second

soda machine in the book depository, which undermines Oswald's claim

of having gone, minutes after the assassination, from the first floor

to the second in search of a bottle of pop. (Moreover, his preferred

brand, Dr. Pepper, was in the first-floor machine, not the second.)QUOTE OFF

Bugliosi has surpassed even the great Jim Moore (CONSPIRACY OF ONE) with the Dr. Pepper theory. I will have to buy the book to confirm that Bugliosi found a living witness to testify that, 1) there was in fact a soda machine on the first floor, and 2) that the machine [on the second floor?--T.G.]was in working order and was in fact stocked with Dr. Pepper at 12.30 P.M on November 22nd, 1963. [emphasis added]

[....]

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

If Dr Pepper really was LHO's favorite soda pop, and if the alleged soda machine on the second floor was the only one that had Dr Pepper, then I wonder why LHO didn't stop on the second floor to get a DP on his way down to the lunchroom...

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

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be worse.

At least he is not still prosecuting.

Ironically, "Helter Skelter" is not the best Mansion/Tate/LaBianca book.

I recently re-read it, after reading "The Family", and realized how much Bugliosi's tome was about him and his prosecution and not the murders, the family, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing that Bugliosi doesn't find any of those dreaded "conspiracy theories" about JFK's assassination credible, because he achieved public renown based on one of the wackiest theories imaginable. For those of you who haven't read it, "Helter Skelter" derives its title from a Beatles song. Bugliosi's prosecution rested on two contentions; a)Charles Manson, while not participating in the Tate-LaBianca murders himself, was ultimately responsible for them through the control and brainwashing of his extended hippie "family" and b)The motive behind the murders was tied to Manson's obsession with the Beatles' "white album" and all its songs.

Somehow, that album (which I loved, but have to admit it sounded a lot stranger to me after reading his book) caused Manson to believe that a race war was inevitable, and that he was supposed to be the one to start it. There was also something about killing the "pigs" as well. Since all those who participated in the murders were white, as were the victims, one might ask how that could be expected to be the first round of a race war. Since there were no police killed by Manson's followers, one might also question Bugliosi's contention that they were out to kill the "pigs," too. They did write the word "pigs" in blood at the scene of the Tate murders, but disparaging references to the police as "pigs" by young people of that era were quite commonplace. If you've listened to the "white album" yourself, you must realize how strained such an interpretation is. Bugliosi's combing of lyrics to try and bolster his wild theory was far less credible and more irresponsible, imho, than anything any JFK critic has ever done.

Bugliosi basically took a typical, drugged out group of "flower children," and tried to transform their horrible, barbaric crimes into something bigger than that. Kind of like his tired accusation about "conspiracy theorists" not accepting that a miserable little loner could take away the life of an important figure like JFK. Charles Manson does not deserve the incredible notoriety he has, imho. Bugliosi gave that to him by crediting him with being the mastermind behind his "family" of murderers. In reality, it should be Tex Watson and Susan Atkins who are known to everyone as the butchers who stabbed those innocent people repeatedly. Manson was nothing more than a charismatic, lifetime street criminal who seemed to be a good source of drugs for the misguided youths who became his "followers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing that Bugliosi doesn't find any of those dreaded "conspiracy theories" about JFK's assassination credible, because he achieved public renown based on one of the wackiest theories imaginable. For those of you who haven't read it, "Helter Skelter" derives its title from a Beatles song. Bugliosi's prosecution rested on two contentions; a)Charles Manson, while not participating in the Tate-LaBianca murders himself, was ultimately responsible for them through the control and brainwashing of his extended hippie "family" and b)The motive behind the murders was tied to Manson's obsession with the Beatles' "white album" and all its songs.

Somehow, that album (which I loved, but have to admit it sounded a lot stranger to me after reading his book) caused Manson to believe that a race war was inevitable, and that he was supposed to be the one to start it. There was also something about killing the "pigs" as well. Since all those who participated in the murders were white, as were the victims, one might ask how that could be expected to be the first round of a race war. Since there were no police killed by Manson's followers, one might also question Bugliosi's contention that they were out to kill the "pigs," too. They did write the word "pigs" in blood at the scene of the Tate murders, but disparaging references to the police as "pigs" by young people of that era were quite commonplace. If you've listened to the "white album" yourself, you must realize how strained such an interpretation is. Bugliosi's combing of lyrics to try and bolster his wild theory was far less credible and more irresponsible, imho, than anything any JFK critic has ever done.

Bugliosi basically took a typical, drugged out group of "flower children," and tried to transform their horrible, barbaric crimes into something bigger than that. Kind of like his tired accusation about "conspiracy theorists" not accepting that a miserable little loner could take away the life of an important figure like JFK. Charles Manson does not deserve the incredible notoriety he has, imho. Bugliosi gave that to him by crediting him with being the mastermind behind his "family" of murderers. In reality, it should be Tex Watson and Susan Atkins who are known to everyone as the butchers who stabbed those innocent people repeatedly. Manson was nothing more than a charismatic, lifetime street criminal who seemed to be a good source of drugs for the misguided youths who became his "followers."

Don, if I remember correctly, the family took items from those they killed and dropped them in what they believed were black neighborhoods. Unfortunately, they got off the wrong exit and dropped a wallet in Sylmar--a mixed neighborhood--instead of Pacoima--a black neighborhood. I know these "hoods" very well and drive by Spahn Ranch almost every day.

P.S. if you don't get that the "White Album" was a call for revolution than you just haven't listened to it properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Like most of the other celebrated music stars of the '60s, the Beatles were producing lots of socially relevant music at that time, and the white album was probably (imho) their masterpiece. However, there is a big difference between protest songs and advocating murder and/or racial war. My point was that Bugliosi formulated a ridiculous, contrived explanation for the Tate-LaBianca murders which unjustifiably revolved around the lyrics from the white album. I think his absurd theory doesn't speak well for him, and makes his dishonest defense of the indefensible lone-assassin fairy tale a bit more understandable. I don't find Bugliosi the least bit credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Like most of the other celebrated music stars of the '60s, the Beatles were producing lots of socially relevant music at that time, and the white album was probably (imho) their masterpiece. However, there is a big difference between protest songs and advocating murder and/or racial war. My point was that Bugliosi formulated a ridiculous, contrived explanation for the Tate-LaBianca murders which unjustifiably revolved around the lyrics from the white album. I think his absurd theory doesn't speak well for him, and makes his dishonest defense of the indefensible lone-assassin fairy tale a bit more understandable. I don't find Bugliosi the least bit credible.

You make a really good point that Bugliosi was indulging in his own conspiracy theory in his book. I haven't read it so I was curious. It's doubtful that I'll read anything by that guy now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have ordered this book and I eagerly await it on May 28, the date that Barnes & Noble told me again yesterday that I should receive it.

I decided to order this book primarily for one reason. I want to hear Mr. B's explanation of how the testimony of over one hundred eye witnesses in Dealey Plaza, plus what I consider the "expert testimony" of the Parkland Hospital Trauma Team, and the testimonies of several present during the entire Bethesda autopsy and the work of the morticians, can be disregarded or deemed unworthy or unreliable.

I have long professed a dogged belief in alteration of movie films, autopsy photos as well as xrays.

I see no way that some of the autopsy photos and xrays can be explained in the light of of these more than 100 testimonies to which I have referred. I cannot believe that the medical experts which comprised the Parkland Trauma team were confused or disoriented regarding what they saw. It should be obvious to all, that one of three things occurred.

One is that everyone at Parkland was either "blind, incompetent, or lying". The other is that the body changed between Parkland and Bethesda. The third is that some autopsy photos and xrays are forged.

Of course, points two and three prove conspiracy, and point one is most unlikely !

If Mr. Bugliosi can explain to me in a reasonable and believable manner the reasons for the above, I will not only be happy, but overjoyed, to set this study "away" forever !

I really hope that he can !

If not, I wont even find it at all necessary to read the remainder of the book, as I will truly know that I have wasted my money. Tho I suppose that a week's entertainment is worth $50.00, particularly since I just spent $60.00 to watch a prize fight on Pay TV!

The fight tho, may very well have been the better investment.

Charlie Black

Edited by Charles Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...