Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[Ross Lidell]

Poor Vince, out of steam at #29...

"...his lack of planning to ensure his survival. Although Oswald wanted to survive?"

And leaving all that nice cash behind in Irving. Must have had blind faith in his handler.

What handler?

[Jerry Freeman]

 ..he apparently never thought out his escape, even to the obvious point of bringing his revolver to work with him so that he would have it to defend and extricate himself from any possible confrontation with the authorities   .. he went back to his room and got his revolver.

After he had already 'escaped'

Assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, and just plain wild guesses and inventing various scenarios can work just about any way you want.
Coulda..woulda...shoulda held back a couple of dollars and gone to the nearest sporting goods and bought another box of shells for a real battle.

 


 
 

[John Iacoletti]

Hmmmm, on one side we have Loony Toons John Iacoletti and on the other we have one of the most successfully brilliant lawyers of all time Vincent Bugliosi!

Mytton always ends up reverting back to a false appeal to authority.

He wasn't chatty with the cab driver.  Such brilliant "evidence".

[John Iacoletti]

Where did JohnM mention anything about any options re location?
By the time Oswald took aim he had only about 20% of the target available.

Yet you avoid that by veering off course and offer up some goofy nonsense about other shooters in completely different circumstances.

I'm not the one trying to make the silly argument that if Oswald wanted to shoot the president, he only had one option for where to do it.

[John Mytton]

30. If Oswald had conspired with others to murder Kennedy, why would he not have explored the possibility with the authorities of saving his own life by implicating them? This would be particularly true if, as the conspiracy theorists allege, he was ?set up? by co-conspirators to take the blame, that he was ?the designated fall guy.? In fact, they cite his statement in custody that he was just a ?patsy? as support for this proposition. But if, indeed, Oswald?s co-conspirators set him up, he?d have all the more reason to implicate them, having no reason at that point to feel any loyalty toward those who had betrayed him. Yet Oswald, throughout his twelve hours of interrogation, never suggested in any way that he was part of any conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Because Oswald knew that there was so much evidence against him, including his ownership of the murder weapon, and that a sentence of death was going to be automatic, to save his life he most likely would have implicated others if there were any to implicate (an extremely common occurrence in criminal cases, i.e., ?turning state?s evidence?), yet he said nothing. This fact is circumstantial evidence that there simply were no co-conspirators for him to implicate. And what about Ruby? As we have seen, it is scripture among conspiracy theorists that ?Jack Ruby silenced Oswald for the mob.? But they don?t ask themselves, ?Who was supposed to silence Jack Ruby?? Ruby, we know, lived more than three long years (1,154 days) after killing Oswald before passing away on January 3, 1967, and never once suggested that he killed Oswald for someone else. But if mobsters were behind Ruby?s act, they could never know if Ruby would talk someday. Yet there is no evidence that the mob or anyone else tried to silence Ruby. We?ve observed that the emotionally erratic and unreliable Oswald would have been one of the last people in the world the mob (or any other group of alleged conspirators) would have relied on to carry out its biggest murder ever. But Ruby was equally unreliable. Why would the mob choose someone to silence Oswald who was a notorious blabbermouth, had a volcanic temper, and was so emotionally unstable? The notion that the mob (or anyone else) got the goofy Oswald, of all people, to kill Kennedy and then got the even goofier Jack Ruby, of all people, to silence Oswald is downright laughable. I told the jury in London that the mob could just as well have ?gone down to Disneyland and gotten Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck to do their bidding for them.?83       

Several years after I made that remark in London, I read The Last Mafioso, Ovid Demaris?s biography of Los Angeles mob boss Jimmy ?The Weasel? Fratiano, the highest-ranking mafioso ever to ?turn? on the mob, his testimony for the federal government in the early 1980s sending many of them to prison for life. Fratiano was particularly close to fellow mafioso Johnny Roselli, and Fratiano quotes Roselli as telling him one day while they were driving through the Santa Monica mountains shortly after Roselli?s testimony before the HSCA in Washington, D.C., in 1976, ?[They?re] all hot, you know, about who killed Kennedy. Sometimes I?d like to tell them the mob did it, just to see the expression on their stupid faces. You know, we?re supposed to be idiots, right? We hire a psycho like Oswald to kill the President and then we get a blabbermouth, two-bit punk like Ruby to shut him up. We wouldn?t trust those jerks to hit a fucking dog.?84 I don?t know if Roselli told Fratiano this, or Fratiano, for some reason, made it up, but either way, it clearly reflects a mafioso?s view of the preposterous theory that organized crime, even if it made the even more preposterous decision to murder the president of the United States, would hire Oswald and Ruby to do its bidding for them.
RHVB



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #29

Here we see Vince drop the trappings completely and go into full blown mindreading mode.

Extra LOLs for Bugliosi's stance that Oswald lied during interrogation except when he didn't.

[John Mytton]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #29

Here we see Vince drop the trappings completely and go into full blown mindreading mode.

Extra LOLs for Bugliosi's stance that Oswald lied during interrogation except when he didn't.

Hilarious, another angry and desperate response just admit that Bugliosi's got you by the short and curlies and you just can't refute any of it.



JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

I'm not the one trying to make the silly argument that if Oswald wanted to shoot the president, he only had one option for where to do it.

Tell us when you think the foxy Oswald + Friends started to plan an attempt on Kennedy and then maybe you can suggest  which locations or methods of attack would have him out & about rather than showing up for work that day.