Vincent Bugliosi weighs in on JFK assassination

[Terry Mauro]

And now for some Friday humor: Rip Van Bugliosi's hometown paper reviews Bugliosi's new book.

http://www.calendarlive.com/books/la-bk-ne...-books-features

BOOK REVIEW 'Reclaiming History' by Vincent Bugliosi

An in-depth look at the many theories about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy

By Jim Newton

May 13, 2007

Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Vincent Bugliosi W.W. Norton: 1,612 pp., $49.95

Vincent BUGLIOSI is an American master of common sense, a punishing advocate and a curmudgeonly refreshing voice of reason.

.........

But no serious scholar of the president's assassination will ever write again on the subject without citing Bugliosi. And there are more works to come — most promising, a long-awaited look at the Warren Commission from author Max Holland ("The Kennedy Assassination Tapes").

No doubt there also will be more works of confusion and idiocy. Happily, however, from this point forward, all contributors to the field must build on "Reclaiming History."

With this work, Bugliosi has definitively explained the murder that recalibrated modern America. It is a book for the ages. jim.newton@latimes.com

Jim Newton, editor of The Times' editorial pages, is the author of "Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made." Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times

http://www.calendarlive.com/books/la-bk-ne...-books-features

I sent a little note to Jim Newton and he actually replied. I reminded him that some years ago he published an op-ed piece on the Warren Commission by former WC attorney Richard Mosk, and my response was published, much to my surprise.

Also note that the LA Times and Rolling Stone are the only mainstream publications that think E. Howard Hunt's words on the assassination are newsworthy.

Newton said we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on the evidence, and suggested that I read Bugliosi's book.

I agreed if he will publish my review and read David Talbot's Brothers.

Maybe John can get Bugliosi to join the forum and answer some questions and we can give some real meaning to the Debate in JFK Assassination Debate.

BK

**************************************************************

"Maybe John can get Bugliosi to join the forum and answer some questions and we can give some real meaning to the Debate in JFK Assassination Debate."

I wouldn't count on it. Especially after reading "From the introduction: [posted by Mike Hogan]

"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....."

Observe his condescending attitude toward the research community, as a whole. And, it's certainly quite evident how much disdain he holds for the "conspiracy authors."

[Terry Mauro]

I'd recommend that interested parties from this board register with Amazon (if they haven't already) and post specific errors and factual mistakes in the review section under Bugliosi's book, along with appropriate 1-star negative ratings (the system won't let us go to zero), with an emphasis on clearly describing the book's errors. Brian's rebuttals above with page numbers listed are excellent examples of the sort of thing that would be useful. The usual no-conspiracy-here-folks idiots appproving Bugliosi's work won't have as much traction if their fawning posts are balanced out by clear-cut pieces describing the work's factual errors and omissions. Once a review is there, it's there forever and can work wonders in informing newcomers and decreasing interest in the book.

As an aside, I checked the recent pre-order sales of this and Talbot's BROTHERS and Talbot's book was outselling Bugliosi's by a massive margin.

Anthony,

I agree that publishing reviews on Amazon for Bugliosi's book is quite a good idea, given that people determine whether or not to buy the book based upon others observations. This is the type of project that needs to be co-ordinated among the research community. As it stands, amazon reviews of JFK books are primarily the domain of David Von Pein. He does a thorough job of praising and bashing those books that fit his paradigm and those that do not.

I will be writing an article for the Dealey Plaza echo in the next few days based on the topic of co-operative research and projects. I will post it here when it is finished. It is about time that we start creating some counter propaganda of our own.

John

*********************************************************

"Anthony,

I agree that publishing reviews on Amazon for Bugliosi's book is quite a good idea, given that people determine whether or not to buy the book based upon others observations. This is the type of project that needs to be co-ordinated among the research community. As it stands, amazon reviews of JFK books are primarily the domain of David Von Pein. He does a thorough job of praising and bashing those books that fit his paradigm and those that do not."

This is an excellent idea, and should be organized and orchestrated by a contingency of those who have authored books and manuscripts that have relevant excerpts gleaned from Weisberg and others who have zeroed in on the inconsistencies in the Warren Commission Report and used it to advance the case for conspiracy. We shouldn't sit idle here allowing Bugliosi to reign supreme as some "be all" and "end all" answer to the assassination. Especially, when he's such an obvious sell-out. But, who's going to counter him? The sheeple will embrace this like manna from heaven. There's no time to waste. We need intelligent rebuttals appearing on amazon.com, since I seriously doubt they'll be allowed to surface in the editorials of the L.A. Times.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The New York Times review is surprisingly low-keyed in endorsing Bugliosi's book. As I recall, it was much more enthusiastic about Gerald Posner. I get the distinct impression that the reviewer merely interviewed Bugliosi without bothering to read the book.

I like this one “If you’re reading about the Zapruder film, that has nothing to do with the autopsy,” he explained.

He may have a point, considering that the autopsy report is inconsistent with what we see in the Z film.

I used to think that Bugliosi was a decent human being, even when I disagreed with him, but now I am not so sure. Like everyone else, Bugliosi cannot pin a motive on Lee Oswald, so he trots out this vicious old chestnut: It was all Marina's fault.

NYT QUOTE ON: But Mr. Bugliosi maintains that the American public has been conned into believing Oswald was framed, and that among the victims is Oswald’s widow, Marina, whom Mr. Bugliosi interviewed in 2000. After telling the Warren Commission that she believed her husband was guilty, she has slowly changed her story over the years.

“She’s never changed the facts upon which her initial conclusions were based,” Mr. Bugliosi said. And, he added, he is convinced that the tempestuous nature of Lee and Marina Oswald’s relationship played a part in the murder. The night before the assassination, Mr. Bugliosi writes, Oswald, then separated from his wife, visited her and asked her to come back to him, which she refused to do.NYT QUOTE OFF

LOS ANGELES, May 13 — The prosecutor who put Charles Manson behind bars now wants to solve another crime — a really simple one, he insists. So simple that it takes only 1,612 pages to prove his case.

Vincent Bugliosi, whose prosecution of Charles Manson in 1970 led him to write one of the best-selling true-crime books of all time, “Helter Skelter,” has now turned his attention to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

And that is his full attention: 20 years of research, more than one million words, hundreds of interviews, thousands of documents and more than 10,000 citations. The result, “Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy” (W. W. Norton), is due out tomorrow. His conclusion: Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and acted alone.

Why would such a simple conclusion require so much argument?

“Because of the unceasing and fanatical obsession of thousands of researchers over the last 43 years, from around the world but mostly in the United States,” Mr. Bugliosi said in an interview at the cafe of the Sportsmen’s Lodge Hotel in Studio City, Calif. “Examining under a high-powered microscope every comma, every period, every detail on every conceivable issue, and making hundreds and hundreds of allegations, they have transformed this simple case into its present form.”

Mr. Bugliosi likes to tell a story illustrating why he believes this book is necessary. In 1992, less than a year after the debut of Oliver Stone’s conspiracy-minded film “J.F.K.,” Mr. Bugliosi was addressing a group of trial lawyers when a member of the audience asked him about the assassination.

Mr. Bugliosi asked for a show of hands of how many people did not accept the findings of the Warren Commission, which had investigated the assassination and concluded that Oswald was the killer. Close to 90 percent of the 600 lawyers raised their hands, he recalled. Then he asked how many had seen “J.F.K.” or read an account that argued in favor of a conspiracy; a similar number raised their hands. Finally, he asked how many had read the Warren Commission report. Only a smattering of hands went up.

“The first national poll that came out shortly after the assassination showed the majority of Americans accepted the Warren Commission,” he said. “But all people have seen throughout the years is one book after another propounding the conspiracy theory. It has penetrated the consciousness of the American people and convinced them that the Warren Commission’s a big joke, and that Oswald was either innocent or just some patsy who was framed by some exotic group of conspirators, ranging from anti-Catholic Cuban exiles to organized crime working in league with U.S. intelligence. And the majority of Americans now, 75 percent, believe there was a conspiracy.”

Prominent proponents of alternative assassination theories are already prepared to dispute Mr. Bugliosi’s conclusions. Mr. Stone, for example, said that most Americans believed the assassination was more than the work of Oswald alone “from the very beginning.”

“President Johnson didn’t believe the Warren Commission; nor did Robert Kennedy, as David Talbot’s new book ‘Brothers’ shows,” Mr. Stone said in an e-mail message. “In 1979, the House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations determined that President Kennedy ‘was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy.’ The Warren Commission, deservedly, has not stood the test of time.”

But Mr. Bugliosi maintains that the American public has been conned into believing Oswald was framed, and that among the victims is Oswald’s widow, Marina, whom Mr. Bugliosi interviewed in 2000. After telling the Warren Commission that she believed her husband was guilty, she has slowly changed her story over the years.

“She’s never changed the facts upon which her initial conclusions were based,” Mr. Bugliosi said. And, he added, he is convinced that the tempestuous nature of Lee and Marina Oswald’s relationship played a part in the murder. The night before the assassination, Mr. Bugliosi writes, Oswald, then separated from his wife, visited her and asked her to come back to him, which she refused to do.

In 1986, Mr. Bugliosi participated in a mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in London, produced by a British television company. Acting as prosecutor, he faced off against Gerry Spence, the famed defense lawyer. The case was tried before a jury of Americans who were flown over for the event. The jury found Oswald guilty.

That experience led Mr. Bugliosi deeper into the assassination files. In addition to the Warren Commission report, he scoured the files of the House committee on assassinations and dug into reams of other documents in the National Archives. He conducted scores of interviews. In addition to his 1,612-page book, he compiled nearly 1,000 pages of endnotes, which are included on a CD-ROM.

“No one was thinking in terms of a book like this coming out and laying all questions to rest,” he said. “Even questions that people wouldn’t dream about, I think, are answered in this book. It’s the only book that covers the entire case.”

Of course, other books have reached the same conclusion, including Gerald Posner’s “Case Closed” in 1993. While Mr. Bugliosi called that book a “valuable contribution” to the assassination literature, he criticized Mr. Posner’s methods, accusing him of taking quotations out of context and omitting contrary evidence.

At 72, Mr. Bugliosi is anything but retiring. Though he has lived most of his life in Southern California, he retains traces of the Midwestern accent that betrays his early years in Hibbing, Minn. He has been married for 52 years. With deep blue eyes, close-cropped gray hair and an inevitable desert tan, he looks a bit like Henry Fonda.

As a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles, he tried more than 100 cases, winning nearly all of them. That experience, he said, gives him a unique ability to address a case as sprawling as the Kennedy assassination.

“The assassination literature is so vast that people spend years of their lives just concentrating on one little aspect of it: Oswald, Ruby, the Warren Commission, Jim Garrison’s prosecution of Clay Shaw in New Orleans, the C.I.A., the mob,” he said. “I took on the whole thing here.”

The Warren Commission, for example, did not deal with the issue of acoustics. Mr. Bugliosi addressed that in a 65-page endnote, which itself has dozens of footnotes. The House committee, he added, did not deal with all the conspiracy issues.

The effort, Mr. Bugliosi said, has taken a toll. “One thing about this case is that there’s no bottom to the pile,” he said. “I hope I’m wrong, but I feel that the book has taken a physical toll on me, and I’ve always been someone who can tolerate a tremendous amount of work.”

Part of the physical toll might be traced to the fact that all of those million-plus words were written in longhand on a yellow legal pad, and then typed up by a secretary.

Mr. Bugliosi said he did not expect anyone to sit down and read the book from beginning to end. The way it is broken into sections makes it an easily accessible reference book (albeit one that is priced at $49.95). “If you’re reading about the Zapruder film, that has nothing to do with the autopsy,” he explained.

And if anybody does read the whole thing, Mr. Bugliosi said, one conclusion will be inescapable. “It’s my view that it’s impossible for any reasonable, rational person to read this book without being satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone,” he said.

Mr. Bugliosi says he does not believe he will convince all the conspiracy-minded people out there. But as for the 75 percent who believe there was more to it than Oswald, he said, “I think we’re going to knock it down substantially.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/books/14...?pagewanted=all

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Mr. Bugliosi says he does not believe he will convince all the conspiracy-minded people out there. But as for the 75 percent who believe there was more to it than Oswald, he said, “I think we’re going to knock it down substantially.”

Maybe he gets a commission for every brain washed.