RIC LANDERS SAID:
If you're going to keep sticking this guy [Vincent Bugliosi] in our face, at least you can tell us why you think he's so great. Tell us about the great cases he's won. Tell us something, dude.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
As I've said previously, I doubt you had ever heard of Vince Bugliosi before March 2007. You sure as heck didn't know he was involved in any way with the JFK case before a few weeks ago; of that I'm nearly certain (not positive, mind you, but I've got a strong inkling on that.)
But, IMO, Vincent Bugliosi's brilliance lies between his ears. His mind. His common sense. His ability to discern the truth of a particular matter using logic and REASONED THINKING (something CTers are incapable of doing, it seems).
Those VB qualities can be easily discerned by just reading any of his books. Or by watching his 12-hour video series that he made in 1999 (a video follow-up to his 1996 book "Outrage", about the O.J. Simpson case).
It doesn't matter what exact cases Vince tried in court. And I'm very doubtful that you have the SLIGHTEST idea what VB's case log consisted of during Vincent's 8 years in the L.A. DA's office, from approx. 1964-1972.
Heck, I couldn't tell you what cases he tried in court either. I haven't the foggiest...except for the cases that were made into books/films -- Manson, Stockton, and the Palmyra case. But it doesn't really matter to a great extent. Because his record of 105-1 [in felony jury trials] in the courtroom is clear (21-0 in murder trials, btw), and so is his peer-honored reputation as an honest, decent, fair, and good attorney from Minnesota. And, as I said, those qualities emerge in large quantities in anything VB's ever written.
But Vince doesn't need me to defend him. His record and reputation and his written words on paper do that all by themselves.
RIC LANDERS SAID:
We should expect that what Bugliosi will be doing in his new book is trying to discredit each piece of testimony at odds with the nearly 50-year-old Warren Commission Report. .... He'll be doing what a prosecutor does -- make the government's case that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And a very good case Vince has (in the "Lone Assassin" department), considering the hard evidence in the case that CTers love to skew -- i.e., evidence that all leads in one direction, and toward only one particular individual, and it ain't Carlos Marcello, Jimmy "Bite The Bullet" Files, Danny Arce, or Jack Dougherty.
And here are a few other things I fully expect to read in Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" -- things that nobody else has ever done in any JFK publication to date, that I am aware of anyway:
1.) Vince will possibly present his readers with an old buried "case file" (or two, or three) somewhere in the files of the Los Angeles DA's office (or from another city's case files), in which it was PROVEN that a bullet can, indeed, do a significant amount of bony damage to a shooting victim and emerge almost completely intact (i.e., unfragmented, just like Bullet CE399 in the Kennedy case).
Why this type of visual, PROVEABLE "in the case files of history" demonstration hasn't been accomplished (or even attempted) heretofore is kind of a mystery to me. Maybe no cases like this exist. That's possible, I suppose. But with Vince no doubt having easy access to a lot of old case files, I think something like I described above could possibly pop up in "RH".
2.) Similar to #1, Vince might (possibly) search old cases and come up with a court case (100% verified by experts as well) which featured a bullet that had positively rested inside a gunshot victim's body (or, better yet, a bullet that had verifiably travelled through TWO different bodies, to mirror the SBT scenario), with that bullet emerging from the victim(s) without a sign of blood, tissue, or fibers adhering to it.
[EDIT: Vince said this in "Reclaiming History" --- "In all the evidence bullets I handled in court in murder cases during my prosecutorial career, none had any visible blood on them." -- Page 425 of Endnotes]
3.) Vince will place emphasis on the fact that trained medical doctors can be fooled, and HAVE been fooled, into thinking that more than one bullet must have caused the seven wounds in the two victims that were really all created by Bullet CE399 in the Kennedy case.
The "and HAVE been fooled" portion of my above comment can be easily proven by just watching the 2004 Discovery Channel documentary (which Vince B. appeared on, by the way), "JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET".
At the end of that program, a Los Angeles doctor was asked to review the X-rays of the two mock torsos that were created for the program's Single-Bullet Theory reconstruction. The doctor was of the opinion that the wounds seen in the X-rays had probably been caused by more than just one bullet. He, of course, was 100% wrong in this opinion. Just as other doctors and medical professionals have been wrong when they insist that CE399 could not have caused all seven of JFK's and Connally's wounds in 1963.
4.) And Vince will probably have several other LN-supporting surprises in his book as well. Just a hunch. But I'd be willing to bet my next CIA/VB Disinformation check that I'm right in this "surprise" regard. ;)
David Von Pein
March 31, 2007
