Author Topic: Bugliosi in Wonderland  (Read 330 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Baron Stein

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Bugliosi in Wonderland
« on: November 30, 2007, 07:29:49 AM »
Bugliosi in Wonderland
September 11, 2007
by Baron Stein

My last class of Nov. 22, 1963 was an Economics elective at which I and another student were to debate as surrogates for Kennedy and Goldwater, likely opponents in the 1964 election. By a coin toss I got Goldwater. We started at 1:15 and at about 1:35 another teacher who`d had the radio on in the teachers room came in and whispered to our teacher what had happened in Dallas. Our teacher then informed us and told us the class was over and the school was closing for the day. On that day my innocent belief in America and its institutions began waning. A friend of mine says I was never innocent or that innocent anyway.

Now comes the latest attempt to reassure Americans that 2+2 is 5 in a book titled Reclaiming History by Vincent `˜Bugsy` Bugliosi. Somewhere Joseph Heller must be having a good laugh at the title of that book. Bugliosi gave a talk promoting his 1600 page doorstop at the School Book depository museum in Dallas. Taped in June, it was played on C-Span booknotes a couple of weeks ago. Churchill`s rule that you don`t start an important speech with attempts at humor but get to the substance was never taught to or didn`t stick to Bugsy as he went on and on with `˜humor` about his age.

For approximately twenty minutes he rambled on quoting sycophantic reviews favorable to his book, mixed with anecdotes from his career as a prosecutor. If you didn`t know that Bugsy was the greatest prosecutor ever, not to worry, Bugsy reminded everyone of his felony trial record, 106 cases with 105 convictions. As I listened to his reiteration of his past glories I couldn`t help but wonder how he lost that one case. Could it have been the man was innocent? I also wondered how many of his 105 convictions were thrown out on appeal.

Finally after about twenty interminable minutes Bugsy told us why he wrote the book. He cited opinion polls that show 75 percent of Americans now still don`t believe the Warren Commission yarn. Evidently the previous book Case Closed dismally failed. So, time to call superman prosecutor, Bugsy, wearing his cape, to `˜reclaim history` and squash those nasty doubters who`ve caused 3 out of 4 Americans to doubt the Warren fairy tale. He falsely claims that the `˜conspiracy theorists` have never read the Warren Commision report and accuses them of distorting and lying about the evidence.

Having still not addressed the issues squarely, he quoted Warren to the effect that Warren said that when he was a prosecutor in Oakland this would have been a two day trial. Maybe Bugsy would like to explain why Warren, when answering reporters questions on the White House lawn immediately after accepting LBJ`s charge to form a commision to investigate the assassination, answered the question `Mr. Chief Justice, when will we know the truth?` by saying ` maybe not in your lifetime, it`s that big`. That question and answer appeared in the next morning`s NY Times` bulldog edition and was subsequently spiked from later editions. Of course he had not been charged with getting to the truth, in fact, he was charged with buttoning it up. We know this because LBJ, in his interview with Walter Cronkite after his presidency, told Cronkite that he advised Warren that he thought it likely a foreign conspiracy and exposure of that fact would have grave consequences.

It does not matter if LBJ really believed that the conspiracy was foreign, what is important is that LBJ thought it was a conspiracy, thus his `˜request` for Warren to `˜button it up`. Warren was the right man for that task as one can glean from the following accurate assessment by Mark Lane from his book Plausible Denial


If the CIA had prepared a psychological profile of Earl Warren and made it available to the White House,it would have, of necessity, disclosed that Warren made political deals; that he was willing to sacrifice the innocent if he believed that the nation required it (as thousands of Japanese-Americans could testify); and that he was predisposed to subsequently rationalizing his behavior and maintaining, even when he later discovered that he had made a momentous, historic, and tragic error, that he had been right all along.

In fact, when Johnson, who had appointed the commission, and members of the commission and some of its lawyers began to express doubts many years later about its central finding - that Oswald had acted alone - Warren was immovable. `If I were still a district attorney,` he commented, `and the Oswald case came into my jurisdiction, given the same evidence I could have gotten a conviction in two days and never heard about it again.`

When Bugsy finally got around to making his case, he placed great weight on all the evidence that pointed towards Oswald, noting that, in his experience, when so much evidence points to a suspect, he did it. Of course, what Bugsy omits is that Oswald`s work for whichever part of the `˜intelligence community` he worked made him the perfect patsy with only one small problem; that being that he could explain himself as well as his handlers. No problem: enter Jack Ruby nee Rubenstein, whom we are told was so outraged by the death of his beloved President that, filled with rage, he dispensed justice. Wow , a patriotic hood, how could anyone doubt his sincerity and fail to appreciate his love for his country and his President?

This brings us to the last reporter to have interviewed Jack Ruby, Dorothy Kilgallen. Her death was officially attributed to alchohol and or barbituates. Dorothy was a syndicated columnist and investigative reporter published in NY by the Hearst paper - The New York Journal-American - and was a regular panelist on What`s My Line. None of her work product (notes from her interviews with Ruby nor any draft of the article she was writing was found at her residence). She was the first person I had seen on TV or movies whom I met as she was a friend and neighbor of my Aunt. When, after her death, I asked my Aunt if she believed the official story, she just shook her head and laughed.

Bugsy is wrong when he says critics or `˜conspiracy theorists`, as he calls them, have not read the Warren Commission, we`ve read it. I know I`ve read it as I`ve read other books in the same genre, including The Iliad, The Niebelungenlied, The Norse Sagas, etc. Mark Lane recalled one experience he had when he gave his talk on the JFK cover-up. He was at a Universtiy in Italy (University of Milan, I believe). He was going through his narrative with an interpreter when a member of the audience said something in Italian which triggered first a ripple of laughter which soon turned into a wave. Not thinking himself a comedian, he looked at his interpreter whom he saw was also laughing. She told him she was not laughing at him but rather that the audience member had reminded those present that the Mannlicher-Carcano was known to Italian soldiers to whom it was supplied as `˜the humanitarian rifle` because you couldn`t kill anyone intentionally.

Those forces responsible for JFK`s elimination with extreme prejudice thought JFK unreliable. After all, JFK had promised Allen Dulles that he would smash the CIA into a thousand pieces. JFK had also become skeptical of the nuclear arms race (see House of War by James Carroll). Whereas LBJ would prove more malleable to their aims (see Geoffrey Perret`s Commander-in-Chief on the ignorance of LBJ). His record as President validated that very well.

Originally published on Liberty Forum on 9-11-2007
Scholarly knowledge is greatly retarded by our preoccupation with what is not worth knowing and with what is unknowable