JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
PAT SPEER SAID:
DVP's reluctance to accept the photographic evidence for JFK being shot before he went behind the sign is to me a bit strange.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Why in the world is it strange to you, Pat?
For one (very big!) thing: A shot from Oswald's window in the Z190s means that Oswald was SHOOTING THROUGH THE OAK TREE! And that, IMO, is just silly (even though LNer Mark Fuhrman promotes such nonsense in his 2006 book, and the HSCA, incredibly, thought Oswald was shooting through the tree too).
PAT SPEER SAID:
Bugliosi, after all, successfully pushed this evidence on the jury in the televised mock trial of Oswald. Is he now trying to claim Bugliosi deceived all those jurors?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's easily explainable, Pat. And you surely know the answer to this:
At the mock trial in England in 1986, Vincent Bugliosi was in kind of a tough spot regarding the photographic expert he put on the stand--Cecil Kirk of the HSCA.
It's possible that Vince, HIMSELF, as of the time of the London trial in July 1986, might very well have accepted as fact Kirk's explanation about an early (circa Z190) SBT shot that Kirk presented to the jury in London.
But as Vince studied the Zapruder Film later on (after the trial), my guess would be that he "wised up" in a sense (at least partially), and grew to believe that the SBT shot had occurred quite a bit later than the Z190s. (Although Vince still gets it wrong in his book, saying that the SBT occurs at around Z210, but he never mentions an exact frame. So, after the 1986 London trial, at least VB got closer to the actual SBT frame of Z224 than he was in '86.)
But even if Bugliosi had truly believed, in July 1986, that the SBT occurred at a time other than the Z190s, Vince was still on a spot as prosecutor of Oswald at the London trial -- because he could not subpoena witnesses, and he could not force anyone to testify at the docu-trial against their will.
So, in effect, Bugliosi was pretty much stuck with accepting the witness he was able to get regarding the photographic (Zapruder Film) evidence--Cecil Kirk of the HSCA, who endorsed the early (and silly) Single-Bullet Theory timeline of around Z190 (although no specific Zapruder frame numbers were ever mentioned for the SBT shot when Kirk was on the stand; never once does Kirk say that he was talking about Z190 or Z200, or whatever, during his mock trial testimony; but we all know he was talking about a circa Z190 SBT hit).
If Bugliosi had been able to get any witness he wanted for this "SBT timing" aspect of the case at the London trial, I'm guessing he would have selected Robert Frazier, who performed extensive tests with Oswald's rifle from the Sniper's Nest during the Warren Commission's reconstruction of the assassination in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964.
Whether or not Bob Frazier was ever asked to participate in the London court proceeding, I have no idea. But he certainly would have been my first choice, instead of Cecil Kirk.
I do think Vince Bugliosi should have explained to his readers in "Reclaiming History" why he was no longer supporting Kirk's earlier timeline regarding the Single-Bullet Theory. I don't think, however, that Vince says a word in his book about this discrepancy. And I think he should have. And if he had done so, I'm pretty confident that the explanation I just laid out above would have been Vincent's explanation as well.
Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 television mock trial can be seen below:
David Von Pein
August 5, 2010
Posted By: David Von Pein
MY YouTube CHANNELS:
DVP's JFK CHANNEL
DVP's OLD-TIME RADIO CHANNEL
MY JFK BOOK:
"BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT"
THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY:
A LONE-GUNMAN VIEWPOINT:
DVP's VIDEO & AUDIO ARCHIVE: