We are honored to have Vincent Bugliosi on the show. Despite an overworked voice he gave us a long interview. Do we agree that he answered EVERY question about the murder of JFK? Absolutely not.
We think his opinions have earned a hearing, however.
Mr Bugliosi earned our respect with The Betrayal of America; How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President. In the wake of Florida 2000 few American opinion leaders expressed outrage over the Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush president. An angry Vincent Bugliosi spoke his mind, and deserves great credit for doing so.
In the case of the JFK assassination Mr Buliosi says that a lot of what has been said has origins with charlatans. I know this to be true having dealt with people who have claimed among other things that:
a) the Zapruder film is a phony
b) a shooter of JFK left a bite marked shell case on the grassy knoll
c) autopsy docs saw altered wounds from secret surgery
d) an assassin shot from a manhole
“Disreputable” is too kind a word for some of these folks. This is hardly the same as saying ALL major criticism is wrong. Many contentions have been validated. To pick one: JFK was shot just above the shoulder blade. The Commission published drawings putting it inches higher in the neck. Critics who said diagrams and descriptions did NOT match the drawings were right. This is deliberate deception.
On the flip side. It seems clear that some theories: that the President was been shot in the front of the throat, for example, are wrong. No witness saw an exit to this “entrance” wound. The throat injury resembled an in-shoot but could not have been one. The best evidence suggests that JFK was hit in the shoulder by a slug that deflected upwards, nicked a neck bone, to exit his throat.
Most critics would counter that:
a) no bullet could do what “the magic bullet” supposedly did
b) the Zapruder film shows that the men were not hit simultaneously
Based on experimental trials I know that a jacketed military round COULD easily do what was alleged. They appear to be right about the second notion, however. Study of the Zapruder film reveals that JFK is hit a couple seconds before Connally.But DO they line up well enough for a bullet to have hit both? Probably not, though that does not render the premise impossible. To say that it is surely what HAD to happen is dubious, based as it is on several shaky assumptions about the positions of the men.
Someone needs to stop such arguments on what a carcano bullet can or cannot do. How much deflection can happen once an object is struck needs to be examined by actual experiments. Radioparallax plans a “myth busters” look at this issue over the summer.
Vincent Bugliosi’s application of Occams Razor tells him that the explanation the Oswald did it alone makes the most sense. The lack of a comprehensive alternative scenario is a problem for Warren critics.
Constantly multiplying counter theories does not make one confident that progress is being made unravelling a mystery.
Still, there remains cause for doubt:
– Evidence suggests Oswald had associates who manipulated him- His defection to the USSR has unanswered questions. The possibility that Oswald was an intelligence agent remains open. – The allegation that intelligence agencies were ignorant of Oswald is not credible. The CIA and FBI were far more aware of him then they have ever admitted.- Incriminating evidence was evidently laid down in Mexico City, New Orleans and Texas against Oswald.- Compelling evidence from Dealey Plaza suggests a second gun.That Lee Oswald was a totally innocent, framed, man is believed by a few, but is hardly the universal opinion of critics as portrayed by Mr Bugliosi.We invite comments on this interview, and will air responsible commentaries in coming weeks. Interview with Vincent Bugliosi