Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[John Mytton]

28. Part of a criminal?s invariable preparation for any premeditated crime is to contemplate how to pull it off without being caught. Although Oswald may have been disoriented enough not to have considered this part of the venture, we can be more than 100 percent certain that a group like the CIA, mob, or military-industrial complex would have. Since we know this to be true, if a group was behind Oswald?s act, it is absolutely inconceivable that it wouldn?t have done everything possible to avoid having its hit man captured and interrogated by the authorities, which carried the enormous danger of his cracking and implicating the group. No matter how far removed the group personally may have been from his act, he would have to have sufficient knowledge to incriminate whoever approached him to do the job, that person could in turn put the hat on the person or persons above him, and so on up to the architects of the assassination themselves. Since they would know this, at a very minimum they would have tried to provide for Oswald?s escape. But much more probably, a car would have been waiting for him at a prearranged place after he left the Depository Building, not to help him escape, but to drive him to his death.* Yet here we have Oswald, right after the assassination, leaving the Depository Building, completely alone and wandering out on the streets, trying to get back to his home by catching a bus, then deciding to get off and find a cab. This fact alone, and all by itself, tells any sensible person that Oswald acted alone, that there was no conspiracy in the assassination to kill Kennedy.       

And as indicated, when Oswald was arrested he only had $13.87 on his person,76 not enough to get him far away from Dallas, which, in the unlikely event the mob or CIA didn?t arrange for his immediate death, they would have wanted him to be.       

Even if we make the completely unreasonable assumption that a group behind Oswald?s killing Kennedy would not have made every effort to help Oswald escape or kill him after he left the Book Depository Building to ensure he wasn?t captured and interrogated (i.e., apparently the group wanted him to be grilled for hours on end before it killed him), and accept the assumption made by so very many that it decided, instead, to have Ruby silence Oswald for it, let?s see where that takes us. There are two realities to consider. First, by the time Ruby shot Oswald, Oswald had already been interrogated for twelve hours over a three-day period (Friday, SaPersonay, and Sunday) by investigators from the Dallas Police Department, FBI, and Secret Service, as well as by the U.S. Post Office inspector and U.S. marshall in Dallas.77 Second, if it was the group?s plan to get someone to silence Oswald after Oswald killed Kennedy, all rational minds have to agree that the group surely would not have waited until after Oswald killed Kennedy before it started looking for someone to silence Oswald. This would all be worked out, of course, well in advance.       

In view of these two realities, the evidence that Ruby did not silence Oswald for any group such as the mob is that if he had been chosen to kill Oswald, he would have done so the first opportunity he had, rather than give the authorities two more days to interrogate Oswald, and that was on Friday evening at the Dallas Police Department. That evening, while Oswald was being grilled in the Homicide and Robbery office by Captain Fritz and others, Ruby, we know, was right outside Fritz?s office talking to reporters. At one point, Fritz brought Oswald out of the office and Oswald walked right past Ruby, coming within two to three feet of him.78 And Ruby admitted to the FBI that he had his revolver, the one he used to kill Oswald two days later, in his right front trouser pocket because he had a lot of money from his nightclub on his person.79 Ruby?s own attorney, Tom Howard, said Ruby was armed with his revolver that Friday night.80* Presumably at the request of his lawyers, Ruby wrote his version of the events that led up to his shooting of Oswald on 3 ? 5 inch cards, and the cards were given to his lawyers. Some were prepared before his trial, others in advance of a motion for a new trial. On one of the cards, he wrote in his handwriting, ?Had I wanted to get him [Oswald] I could have reached in and shot [him] when either Fritz [or] Curry brought him out in the hall, when they told the press that they would bring him down in the basement.?81       

In addition to the fact that if Ruby killed Oswald for the mob (or any other group) he would have done so on Friday night to prevent further interrogation of Oswald, there is another reason why Ruby would have killed Oswald Friday night. The mob and Ruby would necessarily have to believe that Oswald would be extremely well protected by Dallas law enforcement, so Ruby would have no choice but to kill him the first opportunity he had since he would have had no way of knowing that he would ever have another opportunity to do so.       

The fact that Ruby did not kill Oswald on Friday night, when it would have been so easy for him to have done so, is virtually conclusive evidence, all by itself, that he didn?t kill Oswald on Sunday for anyone but himself, which in turn is just further evidence that there was nothing inside of Oswald to silence because he too acted alone.
RHVB



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #22

Not only is this just a rephrasing of #21 (Bugliosi does that a lot in order to make lists that look long), but it does nothing to argue against the possibility of a conspiracy, which is what he is trying to do here.

[John Iacoletti]

He has said that he wrote the book as if he were at argument in court. Something like that.
Show us one lawyer who doesn't exaggerate.

This is why lawyers shouldn't pretend to be scientists -- or that they care about the truth.

[John Iacoletti]

If you don't think Oswald was involved then you can ignore his responses which, again, are directed at those who DO believe he was.

Bugliosi's arguments are fallacious no matter what you believe about Oswald.

It's the usual strawman argument that any conspiracy would necessarily be vast, and have perfectly executed a plan that micromanaged every little detail of what ended up happening.

[Bill Chapman]

Unfortunately we CTs can't prove Oswald didn't do it, as it is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. However you, Feluccas are in a worse  boat as you can't prove he did it either, despite you having to prove a positive.

No one can prove anything to a CTroll

[Bill Chapman]

Bugliosi's arguments are fallacious no matter what you believe about Oswald.

It's the usual strawman argument that any conspiracy would necessarily be vast, and have perfectly executed a plan that micromanaged every little detail of what ended up happening.

Whoa. Maybe bench your Wikipedia Strawman for a second here, professor: Pretty sure the psychological take on conspiracy-mongers is their seeming need to make sense of a pipsqueak/loser/nobody taking down the most powerful man in the world. Thus the 42 groups-84 shooters-214-people-accused of being involved pretty much puts to the lie any lack of vastiosity (as Woody Allen might say) from the fringers.

Oswald  = David
Kennedy = Goliath

Who'da thunk it?
Definitely not CTers

[Bill Chapman]

This is why lawyers shouldn't pretend to be scientists -- or that they care about the truth.

CTers shouldn't pretend to be lawyers or scientists
Or pretend that they care about the truth while at the same time twisting what witnesses and other people on the forum said or what they meant. Or what the witnesses saw or didn't see.

[Jerry Freeman]

Or what the witnesses saw or didn't see.

One question- yes or no...would the FBI lie?

Bonnie Ray Williams- His Altered Testimony
By John Butler | Published: June 26, 2018
 
Bonnie Ray Williams gave testimony concerning the assassination of President Kennedy on numerous occasions.   These were :

    11-22-63- This was an Affidavit In Any Fact sworn at the Dallas County Sheriff?s Office Patsy Collins
    11-23-63- Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-302 2 pages Barwell Odum and Will Griffin
    1-14-64- Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-302 Unknown agents
    3-19-64- Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-302 A. Raymond Switzer and Eugene F. Petrakis
    3-24-64- Warren Commission testimony, Vol. III page 161
    5-26-64- Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-302 A. Raymond Switzer and Eugene F. Petrakis

The FBI considered Bonnie Ray Williams as a Key Person in the investigation. Bonnie Ray Williams was a star witness. But, his testimony had to be adjusted over time so that he would be saying the right thing when Bonnie Ray Williams finally arrived at the Warren Commission hearing on 3-24-64 in Washington D.C.

How would Bonnie Ray Williams and his altered testimony outline the Gauntlet Theory? How would his testimony exemplify what happened to many witnesses testimony that resulted in the grand deception on Elm Street. Well, that?s what this discussion is about. Starting on 11-23-63 his statements begin to evolve into something totally different from what he originally said on 11-22-63. The FBI were the agents of that evolution.

During the period 11-22-63 to 3-24-64 the only thing in his statements that remain fairly consistent is that the shooting he describes came from above him on the sixth floor. What did not stay consistent was the number of shots fired and president?s location when shots were fired. If his testimony of 11-22-63 was allowed to stand then there would be a different view of the assassination. Read Bonnie Ray Williams statement of 11-22-63 paying attention to the underlined portion and the notes at the bottom.

The first time Bonnie Ray Williams talks to the FBI is on 11-23-63. There are changes made to what he said just the day before at the Sherriff?s Office. The location of the shooting has changed from the Houston Street intersection to the Elm Street intersection in front of the TSBD. The number of shots remains at two in this FBI 302 below.

But it had to be three shots huh?
It  kept changing until another shot was finally mentioned.........

http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/06/26/bonnie-ray-williams-his-altered-testimony/