Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[Martin Weidmann]

12. In a similar vein, we know from common sense and the experience of our lives, that more than anything else, survivors of a murder victim want the person or persons who killed their loved one to be brought to justice. What reason do we have for believing that the Kennedy family is any different? (As President Kennedy?s brother Robert said, ?Nobody is more interested than I in knowing who is responsible for the death of President Kennedy.?)36 Yet conspiracy theorists, without any evidence to support their position, are apparently convinced that John F. Kennedy?s survivors are an exception. (Indeed, several are so crazy as to believe that RFK actually knew who killed his brother and joined in the conspiracy to cover it up.)37       

It is noteworthy, then, that the Kennedy family has been supportive of the Warren Commission?s conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Because of Bobby Kennedy?s fierce opposition to organized crime, which his brother the president supported, and because of JFK?s efforts, with RFK?s help, to remove Castro from power in Cuba, and with the concomitant dissatisfaction with JFK by the CIA and anti-Castro Cuban exiles over the administration?s failure to provide air support during the Bay of Pigs invasion, RFK?s first instinct?there have been too many reports from various sources to deny this?immediately after the assassination was to suspect a possible retaliatory killing by one of the people or groups he went after. However, after the coffee cooled and the FBI and Warren Commission investigated the assassination, he issued the following statement to the media on September 27, 1964: ?I am convinced [Lee Harvey] Oswald was solely responsible for what happened and that he did not have any outside help or assistance. I have not read the report, nor do I intend to. But I have been briefed on it and I am completely satisfied that the Commission investigated every lead and examined every piece of evidence. The [Warren] Commission?s inquiry was thorough and conscientious.?38 RFK, who undoubtedly knew every one of the seven Commission members personally, had no doubt about their integrity in this case, while thousands of conspiracy theorists down through the years, 99.9 percent of whom never knew even one, much less all seven, deeply distrust them.       

Perhaps one thing speaks louder than any words, however, with respect to RFK?s feelings. During the entire Warren Commission period, he was the nation?s attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer in the land with jurisdiction over the FBI, the main investigative arm for the Commission. If at any time he had sensed that the Warren Commission and the FBI weren?t doing enough or the right things, wouldn?t he have automatically put pressure on them to do so? I would think he would do this even if the victim were not his brother?all the more so when it was. But he never did. Does that not speak volumes? Not only did he not do anything, but in a letter to the Warren Commission on August 4, 1964, he affirmatively told the commissioners he could ?state definitely that I know of no credible evidence to support the allegations that the assassination of President Kennedy was caused by a domestic or foreign conspiracy,? adding that ?I have no suggestions to make at this time regarding an additional investigation which should be undertaken by the Commission prior to the publication of its report.?       

The president?s youngest brother, Senator Edward Kennedy, told Time magazine in 1975, ?There were things that should have been done differently. There were mistakes made. But I know of no facts that have been brought to light which would call for a reassessment of the conclusion. I?m fundamentally satisfied with the findings of the Warren Commission.?39       

What about JFK Jr., the slain president?s son? Since he literally grew up at the feet of his elders in the Kennedy family, if the sense throughout the years was that his father had been murdered as a result of a conspiracy, surely JFK Jr. would have known about it. And just as surely, the late son of the president would look favorably on someone like Oliver Stone, who ostensibly was trying to do everything he could to uncover that conspiracy. But when JFK Jr.?s staff at his magazine, George, asked him to interview Stone to help get the fledgling magazine off the ground in its second issue in November of 1995, thinking it would be a blockbuster commercial success, JFK Jr. balked. When his aides persisted, he agreed to have dinner with Stone at Rockenwagner, a Santa Monica, California, restaurant, and when Stone asked John Jr. rhetorically whether he really believed Oswald alone had killed his father, adding that there had to be a conspiracy, John excused himself and walked away. After he returned, the dinner was politely brought to a close as soon as possible. John later told his aides, ?I just couldn?t sit across a table from that man for two hours. I just couldn?t,? and Stone was not interviewed for the magazine. John?s biographer, Richard Blow, who worked with him at the magazine, said that Stone ?made John feel like Captain Kirk being stalked by the world?s looniest Trekkie.?40       

It?s instructive, is it not, that the Warren Commission?s conclusion of no conspiracy in the assassination is accepted by the brothers and son of the murdered president, but categorically rejected by thousands of conspiracy theorists who were strangers to the president?
RHVB



JohnM

What a pathetic argument to make. The Kennedy family allegedly supports the WC finding so those findings must be true?.. Wow!

What information did the Kennedys have (that we don't have) to even make that determination (if they ever truly did) to begin with?

[Martin Weidmann]

11. As we?ve seen in this book, at the time of the assassination and Ruby?s killing of Oswald, those who knew Oswald and Ruby well, including family members, rejected the likelihood or notion that either had acted in concert with others to carry out their respective deeds. Yet years later, thousands of conspiracy theorists, not one of whom knew or had ever met either Oswald or Ruby, are convinced Oswald (in those cases where they don?t go further and say he was just a patsy) and Ruby were members of a conspiracy. On this one point alone of familiarity with the subject, who is more likely to be correct?those who knew the two men or those who did not?
RHVB



JohnM

Wow, the king of BS is on a roll?.

First of all, how well can anybody truly know another person to make such a determination with any degree of certainty? Just how many families have been completely taken by surprise by the violent actions of a person they deemed to be peaceful?

Secondly, the same people who claimed to know Oswald said he had a secretive nature. Once you make that determination you need to wonder how well you can truly know a man who according to you is secretive!

I would actually like to know who these people are who knew Oswald "well"....

For instance, did Ruth Paine know him well? She had met him in March 1963. She saw him again in late September 63 when she picked up Marina in New Orleans and after that she saw Oswald during a few visits to her house in October and November. Does anybody really believe that under those circumstances you can know anybody "well"?

[John Mytton]

13. If a group like the CIA or organized crime was behind Oswald?s murder of Kennedy, is it likely that Oswald was so strapped for money at the time he murdered Kennedy that he never had a pot to grow flowers in, having, per the Warren Report, only $183 to his name at the time of his arrest?41* In addition to the $170 he had left for Marina, at the time of his arrest Oswald had a $5 bill, eight $1 bills, a fifty-cent piece, three dimes, a nickel, and two pennies on his person.42 A total of $183.87?a big hit man for the mob or CIA. Right. We know that contract killers get thousands of dollars to eliminate people no one has ever heard of, but to kill the president of the United States the mob or CIA is not going to pay its hit man anything, not even any money up front?       

When, on June 22, 1996, I went to the rooming house where Oswald lived at the time of the assassination, Kaye Puckett, who currently runs the place her family has owned since 1939, and was married with three children and living at the rooming house in 1963, showed me where Oswald?s room was, right off the living room to the left when you enter the home. I was astonished at how small it was. When I said to Mrs. Puckett, ?This looks more like a large closet to me than a room,? she responded that at one time it had been used as a telephone room for all the tenants (it had also, at another time, been used as a small library) and was never intended to be a regular room to rent, but it was all that was available to Oswald when he came to the rooming house in October of 1963, the other regular rooms being rented out, and he settled for it. So the CIA or mob or military-industrial-complex conspirators were really taking good care of their hit man, weren?t they?       

Surely no one believes that Oswald would have agreed to commit the biggest murder in American history as a paid hit man for someone else without getting some real money up front.       

Quite apart from Oswald?s not receiving any large sum of money around the time of the assassination as a down payment to kill Kennedy, virtually all conspiracy theorists have alleged that Oswald was an agent of U.S. intelligence during the years leading up to the assassination, many claiming he was even a double agent, helping the KGB. But if this is so, unless the theorists want us to believe he was working free for these agencies (completely unrealistic), where is there any evidence that Oswald, at any point in his adult life, was spending more money than he was earning from his various jobs? To the contrary, all the evidence is that Oswald was always very poor. Poor to the point where he had to borrow money to pay for his and Marina?s transportation to the United States from Russia. To the point where Oswald owned one suit to his name, a Russian-made, poorly fitting garment of heavy fabric that was unsuitable for the warm climate of Texas and Louisiana.43 To the point where Ruth Paine described the Oswalds as ?very poor,?44 and Oswald?s aunt, Lillian Murret, said the Oswalds ?were practically starving? in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans.45 To the point where, as indicated, their friend in Dallas, Paul Gregory, told the Warren Commission that he would often take them shopping for groceries and he was ?amazed at how little they bought,?46 and their friends would bring food and groceries to their apartment.47 To the point where Jeanne de Mohrenschildt didn?t feel she could really judge whether Marina was the type to make a home out of where they lived because ?they had so few things,? and you can?t ?make a home out of nothing?They were so poor.?48 To the point where near the end Oswald was living in a very tiny 5 ? 13? foot room at a rooming house for which he paid eight dollars a week.       

As mentioned in the introduction to this book, no one has studied the assassination more than the late Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg. And as Weisberg confided to me in a letter three years before his death, he had ?not found a shred of evidence? to support the position that Oswald was a paid agent for anyone, adding that Oswald ?never had an extra penny, so he had no loot from being an agent.?49
RHVB



JohnM

[Richard Rubio]

I appreciate the balance.

Mr. Capasse is a very good debater from what I've seen. On this though, I think he erred in saying what he did.

It's a downer if one opens up page one and every thread is a conspiracy thread, really... and I'd think it would be vice-versa as well.

Thanks to Mr. Mytton for the postings. Jusy my humble opinion.

[John Mytton]

you started this little tantrum 6/10 - and like a baby have added one for each time Caprio did - 
check the dates & times

you started this little tantrum 6/10

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, it's all powerful and irrefutable and this feeble response proves it.

and like a baby have added one for each time Caprio did

This is supposed to be a debate between Adults yet you persist with calling me a "baby" and you talk about throwing feces?, be honest, you're a government plant trying to make the CT's look like they're completely off their rocker?

check the dates & times

What's to check, I post then he posts.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

Thank you Richard - I have no problem with a fair and balanced board of topics
But it becomes quite mundane when it's same topic posted here again and before that and before that
it can all be done in one thread to make room for other subjects LN & CT - and that is not Mytton's motive

It is a game of spite; nothing more

Thank you Richard - I have no problem with a fair and balanced board of topics

Yeah sure you do and this unwarranted attack by you, on me, is also fair and balanced?
My threads have a start and end that goes to 32 and yet Caprio is well over 200 and you don't say boo, fair and balanced, my ass!

But it becomes quite mundane when it's same topic posted here again and before that and before that
it can all be done in one thread to make room for other subjects LN & CT - and that is not Mytton's motive

It is a game of spite; nothing more

You can't be serious, the topics in the Bugliosi threads are hardly ever discussed because you lot are intellectually dishonest and always stay in your own self serving safe zones. Time to wake up!



JohnM

[John Mytton]

14. The very rifle that Oswald owned and used to murder the president points away from a conspiracy. One thought that almost immediately occurred to me at the beginning of my research for the London trial was this: Why would whatever group (mob, CIA, KGB, etc.) that was allegedly behind Oswald furnish its hit man with a used, surplus, nineteen-dollar mail-order rifle (one that?get this?had a homemade sling)?50 Not that Oswald?s rifle wasn?t able to get the job done. Safely assuming that Kennedy?s head was the target of whoever pulled the Carcano trigger, one in three shots from the rifle did directly hit the target. But is it sense or nonsense to believe that members of a group like the CIA or mob or military-industrial complex, needing to make sure that Kennedy was killed, would let their hit man try to carry out the biggest murder ever with anything other than a very high-quality rifle? The fact that Oswald used the type of rifle he did is almost, by itself, prima facie evidence that he acted alone and there was no conspiracy. Oh, by the way, the clip on Oswald?s Carcano could hold six live rounds.51 But we know Oswald fired three rounds, and only one cartridge was found in the chamber,52 and the clip was empty.53 So the big group behind the assassination had its assassin set out on the morning of November 22 to kill the president of the United States with a clip that was missing two rounds.
RHVB



JohnM

[Ray Mitcham]

14. The very rifle that Oswald owned and used to murder the president points away from a conspiracy. One thought that almost immediately occurred to me at the beginning of my research for the London trial was this: Why would whatever group (mob, CIA, KGB, etc.) that was allegedly behind Oswald furnish its hit man with a used, surplus, nineteen-dollar mail-order rifle (one that?get this?had a homemade sling)?50 Not that Oswald?s rifle wasn?t able to get the job done. Safely assuming that Kennedy?s head was the target of whoever pulled the Carcano trigger, one in three shots from the rifle did directly hit the target. But is it sense or nonsense to believe that members of a group like the CIA or mob or military-industrial complex, needing to make sure that Kennedy was killed, would let their hit man try to carry out the biggest murder ever with anything other than a very high-quality rifle? The fact that Oswald used the type of rifle he did is almost, by itself, prima facie evidence that he acted alone and there was no conspiracy. Oh, by the way, the clip on Oswald?s Carcano could hold six live rounds.51 But we know Oswald fired three rounds, and only one cartridge was found in the chamber,52 and the clip was empty.53 So the big group behind the assassination had its assassin set out on the morning of November 22 to kill the president of the United States with a clip that was missing two rounds.
RHVB



JohnM

Might be interesting if it could be proved that Oswald owned and fired the rifle.