JFK Assassin Acted Alone, Says Author of Hefty 'Reclaiming History'

[snopes]

Forget the FBI, the CIA, the mob and LBJ. In a mammoth new book, Manson family prosecutor and best-selling Helter Skelter author Vincent Bugliosi declares that he has solved the John F. Kennedy assassination mystery once and for all.

In more than 1,600 pages (and a thousand more pages of notes on an accompanying CD-ROM), Bugliosi lays out his case that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president and did it alone.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifesty...06/bugliosi_qa

[JoeBentley]

*Shrugs* Hell that's already been proven to every reasonable degree a dozen times and people still spout crazy conspiratorial nonsense about the Kennedy Assassination. One more expert proving it yet again isn't going to convince these nutjobs.

Proof doesn't work against conspiracy theorists.

[E. Q. Taft]

I don't know if Bugliosi's book tour will include The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, but I know how I'd start that interview:

Q: So, you say there was no conspiracy to cover up the truth about the Kennedy assasination?
A: That's correct, yes.
Q: And how long have you been a member of that conspiracy?

Actually, I'm in the midst of reading the book now. This is taking a while; it's not only 1600 pages, but they are very dense pages. After a couple of weeks of steady reading, I'm about half done.

It's pretty interesting. He divides it into sections. The first 300 or so pages is a detailed account of the events of November 22-26, from the morning of the assasination through JFK's funeral and Ruby shooting Oswald. The next section talks about the investigations, mainly the Warren Commission, but a couple of others as well (the House Select Committee on Assasination in the late 70's, if I have that right, is the other main one). Then there's a detailed biography of Oswald that runs a couple of hundred pages. Then he gets into the case against him in detail: documenting his ownership and posession of the rifle found in the book depository, then the evidence that that rifle was the one used to fire the bullets that were actually used, etc. ....and that's as far as I've gotten, but later sections will give the details of the various conspiracy theories and why they don't hold up. (There's also apparently a long chapter excorciating Oliver Stone's film, which Bugliosi particularly hates.)

Being Bugliosi, the author is very blunt in much of the language he uses to dismiss the more outlandish conspiracy theories (this is the man, after all, who wrote a short book saying that the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision to allow Paula Jones' lawsuit against President Clinton to proceed while he was in office was incredibly, egregiously wrong). However, he doesn't gloss over anomalies in the case, either -- as a prosecutor, he always believed that the prosecution should present contradictory evidence first, rather than let the defense bring it out; that only makes it look like you're trying to cover things up. And there are a few genuine mysteries -- for example, the question of what actually happened to JFK's brain? Apparently, it was not buried with him at the original funeral; they hadn't done a full examination of it yet. It was apparently turned over with some other effects (the clothing worn at the time of the assasination, etc.) to the White House in a sealed trunk, which eventually arrived at the National Archives, but when it was opened, the brain was gone. No one really knows to this day what happened to it, though it seems likely that Robert Kennedy disposed of it at some point (possibly placing it with the coffin when JFK was reburied in his permanent site a few months after the original funeral, though the director of Arlington Cemetary claims not), to keep it from ever being put on display.

Anyway, it's quite a work, having taken Bugliosi around 20 years to produce. I cringe when I think of that fact that he wrote it all longhand, with a pencil and a ton of legal pads.....but apparently that's how he writes.

[chillas]

Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft

Anyway, it's quite a work, having taken Bugliosi around 20 years to produce.

And how many days, I wonder, will it take before some high-profile conspiracy nut craps out a rebuttal book (as happened after Gerald Posner's Case Closed) consisting exclusively of already debunked nonsense?

[E. Q. Taft]

Oh, just take a look at the Amazon user reviews -- they were llisting his mistakes before the book came out.

Bugliosi doesn't expect that the book will have much affect on the hard-core conspiracy nuts; they're either in total denial, or (worse) deliberate frauds out to make a buck off of it. However, he cites polls that something like 75% of the American public believes there's a conspiracy. Doubtless many of these people have just absorbed the idea from the general culture, and haven't really studied the matter; they've heard a few "facts" and rumors and think that since they're so pervasive, there must be something to them. That's the trend he hopes to fight.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft

Doubtless many of these people have just absorbed the idea from the general culture, and haven't really studied the matter; they've heard a few "facts" and rumors and think that since they're so pervasive, there must be something to them. That's the trend he hopes to fight.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work. When you counter conspiracy nonsense with facts (which the conspiracy loons then assiduously attempt to "debunk"), what most people see is simply two sides fighting over something -- and they figure that if others are fighting over it, there must be something to it.

It's like claiming that your political opponent is known for having sex with goats. Even if it's a blatant falsehood, simply making the claim puts him in the position of having to deny it, which only serves to more strongly associate him with the lie.

- snopes

[Ali Infree]

Another of Bugliosi's short works is an essay condemning the Supreme Court decision in the 2000 Florida presidential re-count.

1600 pages ! Unfortunately, that reminds me of some of the long recent federal prosecutions where the prosecutors laid out such a detailed case, some observers thought that they had lost the jury.

Bless you E.Q. for your dogged determination.

Ali "Dr. Cyril Wecht is still looking for Jack's brain" Infree

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by snopes

...assiduously...

Greatest word ever?

*Thinks for a moment then nods*

Greatest word ever.

[E. Q. Taft]

Originally Posted by snopes

Unfortunately, it doesn't work. When you counter conspiracy nonsense with facts (which the conspiracy loons then assiduously attempt to "debunk"), what most people see is simply two sides fighting over something -- and they figure that if others are fighting over it, there must be something to it.

*nod* Sadly, probably true. Well, at least he might rescue me. While I have never had a firm opinion about the JFK assasination, and have always been rather skeptical of conspiracy theories, I did think there might be something to the idea that the Warren Commission was careful in its probing to avoid confirming certain possibilities -- say, that the Soviets or Cubans were behind it -- on the theory that it wasn't worth going to war over. And from what Bugliosi says about Oswald, the one person he might have been prepared to take large risks for was indeed Fidel Castro. However, it's definitely farfetched that any conspiracy would have picked someone like Oswald as either shooter or patsy -- he was too unreliable and unpredictable.

[Johnny Slick]

...and, of course, for those who are younger than 30, he's also the guy who wrote the book Helter Skelter about the Charles Manson family and the Sharon Tate murder, a killing spree that he also prosecuted.

FWIW he also wrote one of the best books out there about the OJ Simpson trial. You will be shocked - SHOCKED - to know that he thought OJ was guilty. Oops. Hope I didn't give anything away. Anyway, he portrayed just about everybody involved in that trial as a complete boob except for Barry Scheck, who he thought did a decent job rebutting the DNA evidence.

I might just pick this sucker up. 1600 pages is a lot of readin', but if there's one thing you can never blame Bugliosi for, it's being boring.

[E. Q. Taft]

Originally Posted by Ali Infree

Another of Bugliosi's short works is an essay condemning the Supreme Court decision in the 2000 Florida presidential re-count.

That one is a little less surprising, though. A lot of people thought that decision was flawed, and that the justices (on both sides) voted less based on the merits of the case and more on who they wanted to be President. In any case, it's one thing to criticize a 5-4 decision -- obviously, with such a slim majority, there's serious grounds for disagreement with the ruling -- but I think most people would tend to assume that when the court votes 9-0, the proper ruling must be pretty clear. Bugliosi, on the other hand, was amazed not only at the ruling but at the complete lack of criticism of it by legal scholars, the media, even President Clinton's own attorneys. So, the man clearly has some gall -- but that's not to say he's wrong. (I found his argument on that one pretty compelling, myself, whereas his logic on the Bush v. Gore decision was harder to follow.)

[chillas]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

...and, of course, for those who are younger than 30, he's also the guy who wrote the book Helter Skelter about the Charles Manson family and the Sharon Tate murder, a killing spree that he also prosecuted.

You mean like snopes mentions here:

Originally Posted by snopes

Forget the FBI, the CIA, the mob and LBJ. In a mammoth new book, Manson family prosecutor and best-selling Helter Skelter author Vincent Bugliosi declares that he has solved the John F. Kennedy assassination mystery once and for all.

[snapdragonfly]

What does he say about the McGruder film? That's the one that the conspiracy theorists claim indicates two bullets, right? See, I do think a conspiracy thing is probably far fetched, but forensics and gun type stuff are SO far out of my range of intuitive comprehension that when I see an explanation about something like that I pretty much have to take it at it's word because I can't pick out the flaws on my own.

[Jonny T]

Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft

Oh, just take a look at the Amazon user reviews -- they were llisting his mistakes before the book came out.

Bugliosi doesn't expect that the book will have much affect on the hard-core conspiracy nuts; they're either in total denial, or (worse) deliberate frauds out to make a buck off of it. However, he cites polls that something like 75% of the American public believes there's a conspiracy. Doubtless many of these people have just absorbed the idea from the general culture, and haven't really studied the matter; they've heard a few "facts" and rumors and think that since they're so pervasive, there must be something to them. That's the trend he hopes to fight.

Unfortunately, I don't see a 1600 page book appealing to that audience - it's rough going for anyone, and for those who don't have a particular interest in the case but have absorbed the conspiracy theory, I doubt it would seem worth the effort.

snapdragonfly, do you mean the Zapruder film? the Wiki article has some interesting background on it and also links to other films of the assassination.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

What does he say about the McGruder film? That's the one that the conspiracy theorists claim indicates two bullets, right?

I think you mean two shooters. I don't think anybody seriously denies that Kennedy was shot more than once.

[E. Q. Taft]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

What does he say about the McGruder film? That's the one that the conspiracy theorists claim indicates two bullets, right?

I presume you mean the Zapruder film (no snark intended). Oswald fired three shots. The first missed. The second, the so-called "magic bullet", hit JFK in the back and passed through soft tissue, emerging from his throat, whereupon it went on to strike Governor Conally. The third hit Kennedy in the right read of the skull and basically blew that side of his head apart.

What the conspiracy theorists note is that just after the point of the third shot, Kennedy's head snaps back, suggesting he must have been shot from the front. However, they discount that before that head snap, there is a frame of the film that very clearly shows blood and....well, bits of his brain and skull spewing forward, as one would expect from a shot from behind. (There is a high-contrast enhancement reproduced in the book thta makes this very clear.) Kennedy's head snapping back after that is presumably some kind of muscle reaction from the random nerve impulses the shot undoubtedly would have triggered.

Some conspiracy theorists don't dispute the shot from behind, but postulate another shot from the front which produced the head snap, entering the brain in a place where Kennedy's skull had already been basically destroyed; hence the lack of an entrance wound. (They are apparently not bothered by the lack of an exit wound -- though some say it might have been hidden by Kennedy's hair and not found during the autopsy -- or any fragments of the bullet being found inside the brain or skull.) There is no physical or eyewitness evidence of this, other than some very dubious analysis of sound recordings suggesting a fourth shot -- the HSCA investigation concluded on that basis that there had been a second gunman, but that he had missed; there's no evidence of that, either, since (Bugliosi says) the sound analysis has been debunked (I haven't gotten to the section where he discusses it in detail yet).

[snopes]

What does he say about the McGruder film?

Wow, ol' Jeb was in on Watergate and the JFK assassination!

I see Nixon's fingerprints all over this.

- snopes

[diddy]

What the conspiracy theorists note is that just after the point of the third shot, Kennedy's head snaps back, suggesting he must have been shot from the front. However, they discount that before that head snap, there is a frame of the film that very clearly shows blood and....well, bits of his brain and skull spewing forward, as one would expect from a shot from behind. (There is a high-contrast enhancement reproduced in the book thta makes this very clear.) Kennedy's head snapping back after that is presumably some kind of muscle reaction from the random nerve impulses the shot undoubtedly would have triggered.

Penn and Teller demonstrated this exact same principle using a melon/cantaloupe (reportedly what Oswald had for breakfast that day) and Saran wrap.

[Brad from Georgia]

The conspiracy discussions I've seen of the "magic bullet" generally do not even mention the fact that the back seat in the car was built up so that JFK was sitting tall--he was several inches higher than Connally, unlike someone sitting in an ordinary Lincoln back seat. That meant that before striking Connally, the bullet did not have to rise, as some contend. It was a downward course all the way.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by diddy

Penn and Teller demonstrated this exact same principle using a melon/cantaloupe (reportedly what Oswald had for breakfast that day) and Saran wrap.

Canteloupe has spontaneous nervous reactions?