BEN HOLMES SAID:
Released material, particularly by the ARRB, has shown just how much the WCR was a house built with a deck of cards.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Give me a link to just ONE document that was released by the ARRB that proves a conspiracy or cover-up in the JFK assassination case. Just one.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Certainly. Just as quickly as you provide just ONE document provided by the Warren Commission that proves that Oswald was the lone assassin. Just one.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Nice dodge, Holmes.
I knew you'd have to dodge my direct question regarding the ARRB documents, because is there no "smoking gun" document that was unearthed by the Assassination Records Review Board. Period.
What a hypocrite.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
[Vincent Bugliosi] flatly *LIED* about Carrico and Perry's testimony.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's your own interpretation, Ben. Mine is, of course, much different.
Vince Bugliosi was wrong about the "ragged" topic, yes. [Click here for details.] But was it a deliberate and calculated "lie" with the intent to deceive? No way. And the reason is two-fold why I believe Vince didn't "lie" about this matter:
1.) Because, as I've stated before, it's my belief that Mr. Bugliosi is just not cut from that sort of devious cloth.
and:
2.) Just think about this PARTICULAR so-called "lie" for a couple more seconds (the "ragged" comments) -- Vince just flat-out does not NEED to tell any tales out of school regarding this matter concerning the size and shape of JFK's throat wound.
Why?
Because Vince already has Perry's AND Carrico's Warren Commission testimony to buttress his argument that the throat wound was a wound of exit [emphasis is DVP's]:
MR. SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"
DR. PERRY -- "It could have been either."
------------
MR. SPECTER -- "Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?"
DR. CARRICO -- "Yes."
MR. SPECTER -- "Or, did it look to be more one than the other?"
DR. CARRICO -- "No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck."
------------
Given the above testimony from two of the actual doctors who were THERE in Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland Hospital on November 22, why on Earth would Vincent Bugliosi want to put his reputation on the line by deliberately lying about something that he just simply DOES NOT NEED TO LIE ABOUT AT ALL (assuming Vince was the sort of person who likes to tell an occasional lie in his books to deceive his readers) in order to advance the very logical and almost certainly TRUE proposition that the wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was an exit wound instead of an entry wound?
My #2 item above, in conjunction with #1, should make even a hardened conspiracy theorist realize that Mr. Bugliosi did not tell a deliberate "lie" (with the intent to deceive) when it comes to the subject of the "ragged" nature of President Kennedy's throat wound.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Just what credibility does Bugliosi have? Indeed, were he a politician, everyone would be talking about his flip-flopping... for as I'm sure you know, he stood up in court and argued that THIS WAS A CONSPIRACY.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Now who is the one telling falsehoods, Benjamin? Looks like it's you. Because your last statement above gives anyone reading those words the impression that Vincent Bugliosi, at some point in time in the past, had advocated a conspiracy in the JOHN KENNEDY MURDER CASE.
But I know that that is not true at all. What you really meant to say is that Vince Bugliosi, in the 1970s, believed that ROBERT KENNEDY'S murder might very well have been a conspiracy involving more than just Sirhan Sirhan.
Were you attempting to "deliberately deceive" the readers here, Ben? Or should I give you the same benefit of the doubt when evaluating your wholly misleading and inaccurate "he [Bugliosi] stood up in court and argued that THIS WAS A CONSPIRACY" statement that you refuse to give Mr. Bugliosi when evaluating and assessing Vince's inaccurate "ragged" statements?
Maybe Ben was having a "senior moment" when he wrote that Vince Bugliosi previously argued (in court) that the JFK case was a conspiracy. Ya think?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You know, every time DVP learns that I don't say things I can't back up, he seems to forget the lesson. Then he learns the lesson all over again...
Vincent Bugliosi [To the Judge]: "I think the court can take judicial notice that the whole tone, the whole tenor in this country at this particular moment is that there is a tremendous distrust, there is a tremendous suspicion, there is a tremendous skepticism about whether or not people like Oswald and Sirhan acted alone, and many, many people, many substantial people -- I am not talking about conspiracy buffs who see a conspiracy behind every tree -- many, many substantial people feel that Sirhan did not act alone, that he did act in concert."
Now, will we see an apology and a retraction from DVP? For I *KNOW* he's seen this quote before. Anyone care to bet?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Holmes is hilarious.
Holmes thinks that quote from Bugliosi is the same as BUGLIOSI HIMSELF advocating a conspiracy in the JFK case.
But, that's typical of kooks like Holmes. He has absolutely no ability to properly assess and evaluate evidence and statements (like the Bugliosi statement quoted by Ben above).
Bugliosi was talking about how OTHER PEOPLE (not Vince, himself) distrusted the Government regarding the Oswald and Sirhan cases. And, yes, the "lawyer" side of him took over in that plea to the judge in the 1970s. He was trying to make a case for some kind of conspiracy in the BOBBY KENNEDY case, and so he utilized America's GENERAL DISTRUST of the conclusions of the Warren Commission in the JACK KENNEDY case to try and bolster his arguments regarding the Bobby Kennedy case.
But that's not the same thing as Vince Bugliosi HIMSELF saying that the JFK case was a conspiracy. And Vince was not arguing in favor of a conspiracy in the JOHN KENNEDY assassination in that quote. He was arguing in favor of a plot in the BOBBY KENNEDY case.
So, as usual, Holmes is wrong. Bugliosi did not advocate the stance that Holmes claimed he was advocating, and even the quote provided by Hypocrite Holmes proves it.
But even if Bugliosi HAD BEEN advocating (via his own personal beliefs) a conspiracy in JFK's murder when he made that statement to the judge that was cited by Holmes -- so what? Vince made that statement in the 1970s, years before he ever got involved in studying the JFK case in any depth at all. (Vince didn't get deeply involved in the JFK assassination until the mock trial of Oswald in 1986.)
So, quite obviously, even if Vince had been suggesting in the 1970s that he, himself, believed that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy (which he was not doing in that statement quoted by Holmes), it would only go to show that Mr. Bugliosi, after studying the evidence in the JFK case in depth in later years, had reached a different conclusion regarding that murder case.
IOW -- big deal. So what?
And Benji wants an APOLOGY out of me on this issue?? He must be cracked in the cranium.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Yep... didn't think you'd be able to retract your statement.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yep, I knew my explanation would go zooming straight over your silly head. But what can I expect from someone who, as I said, has no ability to properly evaluate anything dealing with this case. You're a howl.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
I'm guessing that DVP must think that Bugliosi was lying to the judge... intentionally lying. Bugliosi had no such opinion, and was merely lying to help his client.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Why would I believe something stupid like that? Bugliosi told the truth about what OTHER PEOPLE believed -- i.e., about how people all over the country were displaying "a tremendous distrust" and "a tremendous suspicion" and "tremendous skepticism about whether or not people like Oswald and Sirhan acted alone".
That's no lie. It's the truth. Vince was merely utilizing OTHER PEOPLE'S distrust in the official Lone Assassin story regarding Oswald's guilt to add more weight to his pro-conspiracy arguments in front of the judge concerning the Bobby Kennedy investigation.
I would think that even an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy clown like you, Benjamin Holmes, would be able to figure that one out. But, evidently not.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Now, as usual, be sure to watch how DVP will run from most of the points I've raised, cherry-pick something he thinks will sound good, and ignore everything else." [And indeed, DVP ran...]
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Already explained this in my last two posts, Holmes. It's not my fault you have no capacity for assessing what Bugliosi said. Don't blame me. Blame your genes.
Addendum:
It always amuses me when I hear conspiracy kooks like Ben Holmes trying to bash Vincent Bugliosi by using Vincent's 1975 beliefs regarding the RFK assassination to suggest that Bugliosi must have ALSO believed that John Kennedy's death was a conspiracy too. As if the two cases are melded and fused together in some way.
But instead of bashing Mr. Bugliosi when bringing up his stance in the 1970s on the RFK assassination, a reasonable and sensible person would be admiring Vince.
Why?
Because by advocating in a court of law a conspiracy in RFK's murder, Vincent T. Bugliosi forever should have silenced any critics who might want to say that Vince was merely a "Government shill" or a "CIA stooge", etc., and that he would never, under any circumstances, postulate the possibility of a conspiracy when it comes to any of the major assassinations of the 1960s.
But such a stance cannot be utilized by Vince's critics against Mr. Bugliosi, because Vince DID take a stand (in a court of law) FOR CONSPIRACY in the Bobby Kennedy case.
So instead of acting as if Vince Bugliosi is worse than Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer, the conspiracy theorists should wake up and realize that Vince WILL argue for "conspiracy" if he thinks that a conspiracy did exist in a particular case.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Please let me know of any citations you have that will back up the assertion that [Gerald] McKnight has little credibility in the academic world. That's after you've finished vomiting upon reading my post, of course.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The vomiting might never end this time, Puffer. (I'm glad you saw my "vomit" remark before I decided to delete it from one of my recent posts [at Amazon.com]. Good catch. And fast.)
In short, yes, I'll take the word of Vincent T. Bugliosi over the word of ANY conspiracy theorist ("professor" or otherwise) when it comes to ANYTHING connected with THIS CASE (the JFK case). Period.
And that's mainly because I know the CORE EVIDENCE AND FACTS that exist in this case...and those facts have NOT changed since the Warren Commission opened its doors in November 1963. Not a single fact concerning the CORE of physical evidence (and most of the circumstantial evidence) has changed one single bit in the last 49 years. And nobody can prove that any of that evidence has changed, or was altered, faked, or manufactured.
And since every bit of that core evidence points to only one man named Oswald as the culprit, the logical answer is pretty easy to arrive at. (Except if you've been reading too many conspiracy books, including this one by the great Gerald D. McKnight.)
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
You are a total phony, Mr. Von Pein. You know it and we know it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm not a phony at all, Mr. Puffer. You're the phony. And you have proven in the last few days that you are every bit as big a hypocrite as Ben Holmes, for it was the same Garry Puffer of Riverside, California, who said this just twelve days ago in this very thread:
"To Mr. John Reagor King, If DVP had remained silent, I would have been happy to study your posts and reply to you, as I indicated. However, his noxious presence here is so offensive to me that I will no longer post on this thread. Sorry." -- Garry Puffer; October 11, 2012
Apparently my "noxious presence" isn't so bad after all. Eh, Garry?
David Von Pein
October 23, 2012
