(PART 1203)


Bugliosi writes the following: "... there is no bottom to the pile in the Kennedy case." (p. 1513) and "... there simply is no end to the case...." (p. 1518). Finally Bugliosi admits what he should have admitted at the beginning: that this case is nowhere near being solved and probably never will be solved, even after decades of industrious research. Not even a former district attorney is superman enough to look down on this large community of Kennedy researchers and call them a bunch of "zanies" or "loony birds".


Vincent Bugliosi never said any such thing. He never once said (or even implied in his book) that the JFK case is "nowhere near being solved and probably never will be solved" [to use Wager's quote again].

Bugliosi believes quite the opposite, of course, with Vince believing the case is definitely solved and is "a very simple case at its core--Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone" [Bugliosi's quote, via various 2007 radio and television interviews].

What Gregg Wager has done here is to imply that Bugliosi's remark on page 1518 ("there simply is no end to the case") means that Vince is of the opinion that the case is not solved.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Bugliosi's "no end to the case" comment was merely referring to the fact that conspiracy theorists have seen to it that there is no bottom to the pile in the JFK case. In other words, it is the conspiracy "zanies" of the world who have complicated the case and made the pit a bottomless one.

But Vince certainly isn't implying on page 1518 that the case will never be solved. That's just silly, Gregg, in light of everything else Bugliosi says in the first 1517 pages of "Reclaiming History".

In the final analysis, Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt was firmly established by the Dallas Police Department within 24 hours of President Kennedy's murder, and Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th U.S. President (and in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit as well) has been reinforced and solidified via the ocean of evidence presented by Vincent T. Bugliosi in his exemplary 2007 tome, "Reclaiming History".

As Mr. Bugliosi states so well and succinctly on page 969 of "RH":

"I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the future maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. Indeed, any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion."


In a way, I can see your point, David, that Bugliosi's "bottomless pit" could be referring to the many "zanies" out there, not to the fundamental case which he finds so simple, although he isn't that specific in the quote I used--he even says he may have bitten off more than he can chew (p. 1518). I disagree with your premise that Bugliosi must necessarily be consistent with his statements (in other words, just because he makes a statement at one time that the case is simple, that means he never will contradict that sentiment later on).

I much prefer the humble Bugliosi, who doesn't pretend to be so smart that he can dismiss certain things that good people take seriously as "silly" and "zany."


But Gregg,

Isn't it kind of obvious that Vince Bugliosi thinks the case is "solved" throughout the ENTIRE book and CD-ROM that he took 20+ years to write? Especially when we find quotes like these on pages xlii and 1461, respectively?:

"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any of the conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was involved, in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren Commission, but the HSCA came to the same conclusion. .... But conspiracy theorists, as suspicious as a cat in a new home, find occurrences and events everywhere that feed their suspicions and their already strong predilection to believe that the official version is wrong."
-- Vincent Bugliosi

"The purpose of this book has been twofold. One, to educate everyday Americans that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone. .... And two, to expose, as never before, the conspiracy theorists and the abject worthlessness of all their allegations. I believe this book has achieved both of these goals."
-- Vincent Bugliosi



It is quite clear what Bugliosi wants to think, and what he wants us to think of him. Too clear, in fact. He tries to make us all look like stupid simpletons compared to him. The trouble is, it is not reasonable of him to take on the entire JFK assassination community (even his allies like Moore and Posner) from the assumed high position of logical acuity and intelligence he pretends he has. This is his hubris and why his book fails. The JFK murder case has profound problems, and he can't make them all go away by intimidating us. My original point is that he finally expresses doubts about what he is trying to do with this book in the Acknowledgments section and that is at least refreshing.


Hi again Gregg,

I'm of the opinion that many of the "profound problems" associated with the JFK assassination are only "problems" when examined through the eyes of conspiracy theorists. Many things have been overblown to absurd proportions by conspiracists in order to cast doubt (any doubt they can think of!) on the validity of the evidence. Take, for example, the ridiculous (IMO) argument that is constantly being trotted out by the Internet's conspiracists regarding the dented lip on one of the three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

Many CTers still insist that the dent in the shell means that that particular bullet shell could not have been fired through Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle on November 22nd, even though tests have been done by various people over the years to prove that when a shooter very quickly recycles the bolt on a Carcano rifle, a situation can (and has) occurred that will result in a bullet shell being dented after a bullet has been fired through that type of weapon.

And then there's the laughable way that many conspiracy believers treat the evidence (and the witnesses) in the J.D. Tippit murder case, including the late Mark Lane. It's just flat-out embarrassing to see the lengths that some conspiracy theorists will go to in order to try and convince people that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of killing policeman J.D. Tippit, despite the conclusive proof to the contrary.

In short, the TOTALITY of the evidence connected to the TWO separate murders that were committed in Dallas on 11/22/63 (JFK's and J.D. Tippit's) and the inevitable PATTERN that is formed by that sum total of the evidence can, in my view, only lead to one reasonable conclusion—and that conclusion is:

David Von Pein
August 11, 2010
November 2, 2016