posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:17 PM
Mr. Bugliosi is reclaiming baloney in that he is trying to reclaim the discredited Warren Commission. Keep in mind that Mr. Bugliosi has a background
as a prosecutor and in his weighty tome has presented a well-argued prosecution brief against Lee Harvey Oswald. And, like any good prosecutor, he has
only presented the evidence that would convict the accused. Like the Warren Commission before him he has systematically omitted anything that might be
used as a defense. Add to this cherry-picking of evidence the fact that he tries to bamboozle the reader with inconsequential filler, such as the
pages 1142 to 1143 where he presents a fictitious conversation between Jack Ruby and a made-up gangster he names Vito which he writes “would have
had to have taken place if organized crime” had sent someone to ask Ruby to kill Oswald. It reads like a bad script from the Sopranos. When Ruby
asks Vito how they arrived at such a plan, Vito replies, “Fuhgedaboudit. Jack.” Sheesh. In his index, there are eight references to Joseph Stalin,
who was dead long before JFK was killed. Yet, there are only two references to Bill Newman, who, along with his wife, Gale, were probably the closest
witnesses to JFK at the time of the fatal head shot. Neither of these two references mention that Newman was on Dallas TV about an hour after the
shooting telling the audience that the shot came from back behind them on what they call the “knoll”. I could provide a list of important
witnesses never mentioned in this book but it would take up too much space. I could also counter the five pieces of evidence Mr. Bugliosi claims prove
Oswald’s guilt but I haven’t the time. One, however, was that Oswald fled the book depository which proved he was guilty. However, a close reading
of the Warren Commission volumes shows that Oswald said his boss told him to go home as there would be no further work that day, which is true. It is
also true that the headcount of depository employees which accounted for all but Oswald was actually taken about 2 p.m. at a time when Oswald was
already in custody. One taken about 1 p.m. indicated more than 50 employees unaccounted for. Within the first 20 pages of this 1,612 page opus, Mr.
Bugliosi refers to conspiracy researchers as “zanies,” “sillies,” “silly buffs,” “cuckoo birds,” “crackpots,” “nuts,”
“publicity seekers” and spreaders of “moonshine.” If someone has to resort to name calling, they must not have much of an argument. He also
cannot even get his facts straight. He refers to “ABC commentator Chet Huntley” when anyone who was alive at the time knows Huntley worked for
NBC. (p. 239) On pp. 421 and 422, Mr. Bugliosi explains how he determined that the “single bullet theory” (one slug through both JFK and Gov.
Connally) was correct by playing with his fingers. He calls the testimony of witness Jean Hill into question by saying that she only made things up
her claim of a Grassy Knoll gunman in later years. He never mentions her January 1964 FBI report where she also stated that she saw someone firing
from the Grassy Knoll. On page 952, he states emphatically, “You cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating
evidence against you.” I guess he forgot that Oswald was recorded by newsmen as saying, “I’m just a patsy!” This is much more than declaring
innocence, this is saying he was set up to take the blame. Yet neither the Warren Commission nor Bugliosi entertain one moment of consideration that
some of the evidence against Oswald was planted or contrived. On page 965, Mr. Bugliosi blithely writes about “the presence of nitrates from
gunpowder residue on his [Oswald’s] hands.” Yet, the official Dallas Police paraffin test reports states traces of nitrates on his hands but no
gunpowder and no gunpowder or nitrates on his face. Nitrates can come from several different sources, including book ink. It is well known that Oswald
was moving book boxes with printing on them that morning. I could go on and on but I think you get the idea. Reclaiming History is a waste of money.
If you want a shorter, more readable account of the assassination, go buy the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission. I truly believe the purpose of Mr.
Bugliosi’s book is not to convince anyone of anything but to simply provide an excuse for talk show appearances, news sound bites and headlines that
Oswald did it all by himself, so as to generate continued controversy in the younger generations at a time when national polls show between 75 and 85
percent of the public now knows that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy. You see, if you can keep the assassination controversial, then
nothing will be done about it. Pretty slick plan, right?