Defaming History or, Who Didn't Kill JFK - Richard Belzer

[WillyT]

<snip>

"It's pretty heavy, huh?" -Lyndon Johnson, after being presented with the hefty Warren Commission Report by Chief Justice Earl Warren

When I came across prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's, Reclaiming History; I said to the salesperson who guided me to the tome, "It's pretty heavy, huh?" The clerk smiled knowingly as if to get my reference, I hope...I thought to myself why would Vinnie (Bugliosi) spend, as he claims five plus years writing a book that after 1600 some pages triumphantly declares, "Oswald did it!!!". In his increasingly testy and defensive style he boldly if not patronizingly announces that he is in fact reclaiming history and in the bargain he absurdly and summarily dismisses a virtual library of meticulous and overwhelmingly compelling research by the most serious and sober scholars, authors, journalists, archivists, historians, scientists...who just happen to have come to radically different conclusions than the esteemed prosecutor.

Upon turning to virtually any page of his "history" one major glaring reality becomes more than clear: Mr. Bugliosi is a prosecutor first and foremost...presenting his "case"...which should in any reasonable reader's mind disqualify him as a true, let alone objective historian:

Even to the masses of us who are not lawyers it is almost jokingly obvious that in the classic technique of his trade there is a torrent of evidence ignored, ridiculed, distorted, re-interrupted and when needed he laughingly draws the most ludicrous conclusions and makes mindless ill-informed guesses about the who, what and whys of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The so-called "mainstream media" in general and depressingly predicable fashion, of course embraced Bugliosi's assault on reason with the glee of ancient archbishops reviewing 1600 pages of a book verifying there "belief" that the world is indeed flat!

So what are we to make of the thousands of pages of theories, counter-theories...facts chasing facts, a Japanese beetle jar...that jug of motor oil filled with bugs...a physicist's nightmare of neutrinos in a rodeo in the fifth dimension...I sift through those pages and I begin to feel like Boo Radley watching Two and Half Men in Esperanto. It's like watching a David Lynch film projected on rain clouds in a Tasaday village.

I was taught the truth will set you free...unless of course you want the truth about who killed JFK.

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-belzer/defaming-history-or-who-_b_60188.html

Man... what would it be like to hang out with THIS guy for an evening?

:shrug:

Plus... Check out the books on the subject that he recommends!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

1. Belzer is wonderful! I've also had a Huge crush on him for years. Bugliosi's

book is a sham.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. They'll never convince me in a million years

that Oswald was the lone shooter.

[WillyT]

3. Me Neither... I Think He Said It Right When He Said...

"I'm just a patsy!"

In fact, one school of thought has it that he had discovered the plot, or parts of it, and was trying to warn the FBI.

Which would actually make him an assassinated hero himself.

:shrug:

[Blue_In_AK]

10. Exactly.

It was Oswald's murder that convinced me something was fishy, even though I was just a 17-year-old girl at the time. The assassination itself was so horrible and devastating to all of us (especially because JFK had been in Houston where I lived just the day before), but the sinking feeling I got in my stomach when I heard the news that Oswald had been shot was almost indescribable. I just knew we'd never have the truth. The events of that weekend changed my life forever.

[seemslikeadream]

4. It is possible that two perrsons, acting independently, attempted to shoot the President at the very

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/0314parentijfkone.mp3


From a Washington Post Editorial after the release of the House Select Assassination Review Committee (1978) reported there was more than one assassin shooting Kennedy - there was a conspiracy --

Could it have been some other malcontent that Oswald met casually?

Could not as many as 3 or 4 societal outcasts, with no ties to any one organization, have developed, in some spontaneous way, a common determination to express their alienation in the killing of President Kennedy.

It is possible that two perrsons, acting independently, attempted to shoot the President at the very same time.

[bbernardini]

5. Some of those jokes are almost Dennis Miller-esque...

...except, you know, well-informed and funny. :)

"I sift through those pages and I begin to feel like Boo Radley watching Two and Half Men in Esperanto."

[Mabus]

6. And that's why I like Belzer

He speaks his mind and calls out the bullshit. I loved him on Maher a while back when he said that the biggest that reason Ghouli was running around the streets of NYC was because the office (the emergency command center) had been destroyed.

[bbernardini]

7. Uh-oh...I hope certain folks here don't read the other entries on his page...

He speaks ill of the DLC in this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-belzer/what-would-jesus-do-no_b_60945.html

Panties, meet twist.

[rasputin1952]

8. I dragged myself through said tome, and I have to say...

Buliosi was looking for a fat paycheck, nothing more. FWIW, if he would have left out his opinions, and stuck to objective research, said tome would have been some 600 pages less, I figure he just kept writing believing that the size of the book would justify it's contents...he was wrong.

While he can make a good case in certain portions of the book, he failed miserably at "explaining" some of the most contentious aspects of the affair.

1. He did not explain the Oswald pic in the backyard, except to say Marina took the photo(s), as to why there are different shadows on all around Oswald, yet under Oswald's eyes and nose, the shadows show a different position of the sun? (Also under the Marina Oswald chapter, he shows a glossed over serious dislike for Marina, who, by all other accounts, is a generous and decent woman caught up in a very bad situation. Marina has since recanted her idea that Oswald was the lone assassin, and that seems to have stirred the ire of Bugliosi, adding to the notion that Bugliosi is little more than a bully and an egoist).

2. Bugliosi went into detail about the Press Conference Oswald was led to, but failed to note one of the most obvious clues as to Oswald's potential innocence, the body language Oswald shows when informed he has been charged with the murder of the president. For the Tippett questions, one can see he is trying to explain his innocence, but, when the point is made that Oswald has been charged w/the murder of Kennedy, there are a few seconds of shock, and fear on Oswald's face and his body tenses up measurably. One can deduce from this that this is the first Oswald has heard of this charge, and he is quite shaken by the news. Shortly thereafter, he is led away, stating he is a "patsy" and requesting a lawyer, something he has apparently been deprived of, which is a Constitutional "oh shit" moment, (something Bugliosi should have picked up immediately, but apparently failed to).

3. In the "Mysterious Deaths" chapter, he briefly goes over some of the cases, (some of which I believe were coincidental, but certainly not all of them), mainly that of Dorothy Killgallen. I think Killgallen basically had nothing, but that does not excuse the other "odd" deaths and attempts on lives over the years. Mary Moorman, had her brake lines cut, David Ferrie was beaten before a brain hemorrhage took his life and a host of others are surrounded by mystery, never fully explained.

4. Jack Ruby. The whole "spare Jackie the problems in a trial" is absurd. Ruby was a lot of things, and somewhat compassionate to his fellow human beings is one of them. He consistently gave money to people in trouble; he had ties to the mob, but for financial gain; he knew a lot of Dallas' policemen; and he had access to the area where Oswald was to be transferred from. But he was also basically a coward, why would he shoot Oswald under such circumstances? He could have waited at the receiving point, avoiding the throng of people and the confinement of the area he was in, why that particular spot and time? Maybe it was just convenient.


By far though, the worst thing about the book are the constant personal "insights", Bugliosi just can't avoid calling people "conspiracy nuts" or demeaning those who have tried to look at the assassination from a view that differs from the Warren Commission. He'll make what he thinks is a "valid observation, based on fact", then immediately try to justify his position by pre-empting any counter-thought by attacking anyone who would disagree w/him. This may well work as a prosecutor in a courtroom, but it does not bode well for one who is attempting to, "convey nothing but facts in the case".

All things considered, this is Bugliosi's Swan Song. He made a name for himself in the Manson trial(s), and he is feeling despondent over the lack of interest in him since then. Helter Skelter was certainly an interesting book, and laid out many facts about the Manson "Family" and the trial, but again, he let his ego get a little out of control. He does the same thing with Reclaiming History. There are facts to be looked at, but there are many errors as well. Bugliosi does not believe he is capable of errors, something every author of non-fiction should be wary of.

[jobycom]

9. Sorry, Belzer, but your facts are wrong.

Oswald was not calmly drinking a coke when Baker and Truly found him. AFTER Truly confirmed that he was an employee, Patrolman Baker let him pass, and then Oswald went into the lunchroom, bought a coke, and left the building. Moments after Oswald left the building, the police sealed it off.

Marion Baker testified that he had been around the corner from the limo when the shots were fired. He thought the shots came from one of the two buildings in front of him--the School Book Depository, or the building across the street from it. He was sure the shots had come from up high, and as he tried to figure out which building, he saw a flock of pigeons startled from one of them (the Warren Commission is wrong on this, actually--it claims in the opening chapter of its report that Baker said the pigeons came from the SBD), but could not tell which one. AFTER the third shot (he was quite sure, as were the majority of witnesses, that there were three shots, evenly paced), he rushed around the corner on his motorcylce to see what had happened, determined that the president had been shot (or shot at), rode his motorcycle up the stairs to the SBD, scanned the area to the west to see what was happening, went into the building, scanned the lobby area, found the supervisor, ran to the elevators, waited a few moments, then chose the stairs when the elevators wouldn't come. As he was running up the stairs, he saw movement on the second floor through the small window in the stairwell door. He walked into the room, gun drawn, and saw a man walking quickly away. He ordered the man to stop and turn around. That was Oswald. Baker testified that Oswald's hands were empty--no Coke. This was at least two minutes after the third shot, as determined by Baker's and Truly's testimony, and by coordinating the times with other events--like the sealing off of the SBD soon afterwards.

Oswald was seen by other witnesses leaving the building soon after this, with a coke in his hand. Moments later, the building was sealed off from exit, employees were returned to their offices and rolls were called. Oswald was the only one missing.

Oswald had two minutes, at least, to stuff a gun behind some boxes and walk, jog, run, or fall down four stories after the shots had been fired. Try it. It takes less than a minute walking, and going down you won't even be winded.

Whether Oswald did it or not, that's another discussion, and one I'm just too tired to get into. But contrary to Belzer's comedic writings, Oswald had plenty of time and plenty of ability to do it.