(PART 19)


>>> "It was all circumstantial." <<<


Quoting from Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":

"Conspiracy theorists have attacked the case against Oswald as being weak because it was "only circumstantial," the implication being that any case based on circumstantial evidence is not solid. .... But nothing could be further from the truth. ....

"Not only was there PHYSICAL circumstantial evidence against Oswald [e.g., guns, bullets, and fingerprints traced to the defendant], but there was an enormous amount of non-physical circumstantial evidence, including the very most powerful in this category: his flight from the murder scene, his resisting arrest, and his telling one provable lie after another upon his apprehension, all showing an unmistakable consciousness of guilt."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 528 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)


>>> "You can't link him [Lee Oswald] to anything involved in
the case." <<<

I'm unable to utter a sound after reading the above 10 words penned by a nuthatch named Robert Caprio.

Only a super-duper mega-kook would dare write the above ten words.

>>> "What did he [Vince Bugliosi] win besides Sirhan Sirhan..." <<<

Huh? What are you babbling about now? Vince didn't "win" anything regarding the RFK case. In fact, I think Vince now believes he was wrong about his original thoughts of conspiracy in Robert Kennedy's assassination.

>>> "If he [Bugliosi] couldn't put a real kook like Manson away then he should have retired." <<<

Another idiotic statement from an obvious idiot who immediately types out every loony thought that enters his head.

But, of course, the truth is that Charles Manson DIDN'T KILL ANY OF THE SEVEN TATE-LaBIANCA VICTIMS.

Therefore, Vince Bugliosi had to prove that Manson orchestrated and ordered those seven murders. And VB did prove that. And Vince got the jury to convict Manson of both murder and conspiracy to commit murder, even though Manson himself never murdered any of the victims.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I wouldn't have wanted to be in Vince's shoes during that trial, i.e., trying to convince a jury that a man who didn't kill any of the victims was actually the MAIN MURDERER (in a sense) in the whole case.

Not exactly an open-and-shut case. But, in hindsight, it looks like an open-and-shut one because of Mr. Bugliosi's work on that case.

So, Rob, you can stuff your anti-Vincent Bugliosi rhetoric up your kooky ass. (Forgive my French. But it seemed like an appropriate place for it there.)

David Von Pein
October 26, 2007