Vincent Bugliosi - More radical than you'd expect

[Martin Weidmann]

No matter what you think about Bugliosi, he did manage to convince a jury that LHO was guilty. Yes, it was a mock trial. However, it appears to me to have been the most objective of all the mock trials of this case that I have seen.

How many mock trials of this case have you seen?

Many details that would have been highly contested in a normal trial, or would likely not be admissible, were agreed upon by stipulation between the lawyers at the mock trial. The witness testimony was also limited to just a few questions, where such testimony could have gone on for days during a real trial. And the chances of finding a truly impartial jury after so many years of media attention for the case were not great.

[Charles Collins]

How many mock trials of this case have you seen?

Many details that would have been highly contested in a normal trial, or would likely not be admissible, were agreed upon by stipulation between the lawyers at the mock trial. The witness testimony was also limited to just a few questions, where such testimony could have gone on for days during a real trial. And the chances of finding a truly impartial jury after so many years of media attention for the case were not great.

I have seen one other (which was produced before the Warren Report was published). And read about a few others. One of the more significant differences is that these other mock trials were scripted. The one in London was not scripted and was designed to be more like a real trial.

[Bill Chapman]

How many mock trials of this case have you seen?

Many details that would have been highly contested in a normal trial, or would likely not be admissible, were agreed upon by stipulation between the lawyers at the mock trial. The witness testimony was also limited to just a few questions, where such testimony could have gone on for days during a real trial. And the chances of finding a truly impartial jury after so many years of media attention for the case were not great.

Yeah, gone on and on forever like you blowhard Oswald arse-kissers, when in fact Oswald killed Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy.

Re the mock trial
Wikipedia:

Bugliosi based much of the book on his preparation for a mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald staged by British television, in which he acted as the prosecutor of Oswald. The mock trial involved an actual US judge and US citizens acting as jurors, and Oswald was defended by prominent trial lawyer Gerry Spence. Bugliosi obtained a verdict of "guilty." He wrote in the Introduction to his book:

'My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March 1986 when I was approached by a British production company, London Weekend Television (LWT) to "prosecute" Lee Harvey Oswald as the alleged assassin of President Kennedy in a proposed twenty-one hour television trial to be shown in England and several other countries, including the United States. I immediately had misgivings. Up to then, I had consistently turned down offers to appear on television in artificial courtroom settings. But when I heard more of what LWT was contemplating, my misgivings quickly dissolved. Although this could not be the real trial of Oswald...LWT, working with a large budget, had conceived and was putting together the closest thing to a real trial of Oswald that there would likely ever be, the trial in London being the only "prosecution" of Oswald ever conducted with the real witnesses in the Kennedy assassination. Through painstaking and dogged effort, LWT had managed to locate and persuade most of these original key lay witnesses, many of whom had refused to even talk to the media for years, to testify...There would be absolutely no script...and no actors would be used.'
-- Vincent Bugliosi

[Charles Collins]

Yeah, gone on and on forever like you blowhard Oswald arse-kissers, when in fact Oswald killed Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy.

Re the mock trial
Wikipedia:

Bugliosi based much of the book on his preparation for a mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald staged by British television, in which he acted as the prosecutor of Oswald. The mock trial involved an actual US judge and US citizens acting as jurors, and Oswald was defended by prominent trial lawyer Gerry Spence. Bugliosi obtained a verdict of "guilty." He wrote in the Introduction to his book:

'My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March 1986 when I was approached by a British production company, London Weekend Television (LWT) to "prosecute" Lee Harvey Oswald as the alleged assassin of President Kennedy in a proposed twenty-one hour television trial to be shown in England and several other countries, including the United States. I immediately had misgivings. Up to then, I had consistently turned down offers to appear on television in artificial courtroom settings. But when I heard more of what LWT was contemplating, my misgivings quickly dissolved. Although this could not be the real trial of Oswald...LWT, working with a large budget, had conceived and was putting together the closest thing to a real trial of Oswald that there would likely ever be, the trial in London being the only "prosecution" of Oswald ever conducted with the real witnesses in the Kennedy assassination. Through painstaking and dogged effort, LWT had managed to locate and persuade most of these original key lay witnesses, many of whom had refused to even talk to the media for years, to testify...There would be absolutely no script...and no actors would be used.'
-- Vincent Bugliosi

 

[Richard Smith]

And both of you arrogantly and mistakenly believe you know it all (when in truth you have no answers to the easiest of questions) and both are extremely petty.

In his case, he is writing a book for the public.

No. He wrote it for the money. Judging by how badly it sold, the public wanted nothing to do with it. Whenever somebody needs a book of that size (so many words) to explain a simple case of a guy in a window shooting a guy in a car, it's pretty obvious that something is up.

LOL.  Yes, I'm sure there was a big market for a 1600+ page book on the JFK assassination that concludes Oswald is guilty and is so heavy it almost can't be picked up.  Obviously, the intent was not to make money.  If he and the publisher wanted to do that, they would have made up some nutty conspiracy theory and kept it short for those like minded kooks with limited intelligence and attention spans.

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  Yes, I'm sure there was a big market for a 1600+ page book on the JFK assassination that concludes Oswald is guilty and is so heavy it almost can't be picked up.  Obviously, the intent was not to make money.  If he and the publisher wanted to do that, they would have made up some nutty conspiracy theory and kept it short for those like minded kooks with limited intelligence and attention spans.

Why would Bugliosi change the nutty story he was always going write after receiving his six-figure advance?

I probably won't get an answer (as per usual), but why would the publishers pay Bugs a massive advance if their intent was not to make money?

[Martin Weidmann]

Yeah, gone on and on forever like you blowhard Oswald arse-kissers, when in fact Oswald killed Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy.

Re the mock trial
Wikipedia:

Bugliosi based much of the book on his preparation for a mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald staged by British television, in which he acted as the prosecutor of Oswald. The mock trial involved an actual US judge and US citizens acting as jurors, and Oswald was defended by prominent trial lawyer Gerry Spence. Bugliosi obtained a verdict of "guilty." He wrote in the Introduction to his book:

'My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March 1986 when I was approached by a British production company, London Weekend Television (LWT) to "prosecute" Lee Harvey Oswald as the alleged assassin of President Kennedy in a proposed twenty-one hour television trial to be shown in England and several other countries, including the United States. I immediately had misgivings. Up to then, I had consistently turned down offers to appear on television in artificial courtroom settings. But when I heard more of what LWT was contemplating, my misgivings quickly dissolved. Although this could not be the real trial of Oswald...LWT, working with a large budget, had conceived and was putting together the closest thing to a real trial of Oswald that there would likely ever be, the trial in London being the only "prosecution" of Oswald ever conducted with the real witnesses in the Kennedy assassination. Through painstaking and dogged effort, LWT had managed to locate and persuade most of these original key lay witnesses, many of whom had refused to even talk to the media for years, to testify...There would be absolutely no script...and no actors would be used.'
-- Vincent Bugliosi

Although this could not be the real trial of Oswald...

putting together the closest thing to a real trial of Oswald

Says it all, really.....

If the mock trail did really come anywhere close to a real trial, there wouldn't have been a need for Bugs to write his door stopper. The size of his book is the best evidence to show that the mock trail only scratched the surface.

Btw

Yeah, gone on and on forever

Gone, to where?

[Bill Chapman]

Although this could not be the real trial of Oswald...

putting together the closest thing to a real trial of Oswald

Says it all, really.....

If the mock trail did really come anywhere close to a real trial, there wouldn't have been a need for Bugs to write his door stopper. The size of his book is the best evidence to show that the mock trail only scratched the surface.

Btw

Yeah, gone on and on forever

Gone, to where?

Gone, to where?
Ever deeper down the never-ending Oswald-lover rabbit hole. Where nothing is provable, nothing is knowable, and nothing is believable.

And you have no idea why Bugliosi wrote his book, fool.