Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[Jerry Freeman]

I believe they did use silencers.

[Jack Trojan]

I believe they did use silencers.

Of course they did. Only the Mauser from the TSBD was allowed to make noise (except for simultaneous shots at the Turkey Shoot Point, which sounded like a single shot). And only 3 noisy shots, otherwise, it wouldn't match the 3 hulls that Fritz staged in the SN. I'm still not sure how Oswald didn't get a single print on the MC's stalk, barrel, scope, mag, ammo and strap when he disassembled/reassembled it in the TSBD. And why would you keep a useless scope on the rifle especially if you were trying to make it fit into a paper bag and you knew you wouldn't be using it anyway?

No, the MC never took a shot because it was already planted in the TSBD by then. They shot some rounds into a swimming pool so they could plant an intact magic bullet and 3 hulls, which could be linked to the MC rifle. Otherwise, the Bug was right that the conspirators would never rely on Oswald with the MC alone to do the job. He was the designated patsy. Every good coup needs one.

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #18.

Notice how often Bugliosi says the same thing over and over again, but puts different numbers next to it each time?

"I don't believe conspirators would do X, therefore there was no conspiracy"  ad infinitum

[John Iacoletti]

But how likely is it that with the biggest murder ever coming up on his plate, Oswald (on his own or with the group?s knowledge and consent) would try to murder some other public figure first? (As we know, Oswald attempted to murder Major General Edwin Walker just months earlier, on April 10, 1963.)

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #20 -- Begging the question again

Typical Bugliosi.  Take something that we don't actually know and stick "As we know" in front of it.

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #19

How many times now has he made the "I don't believe a conspiracy would do X, therefore there was no connspiracy" argument?  I've lost count.

[John Iacoletti]

I started out many years ago as someone who loved a good conspiracy but before I was 'sold' I insisted on seeing the 'evidence' stack up. The more I read about the assassination the more (much to my initial disappointment!) I was swayed by the LN evidence.

I'm sure that if you'd care to share what specific "evidence" it was that swayed you, there would be plenty of people to tell you what's wrong with it.

[John Iacoletti]

Didn't the woman at the front desk at FBI/Dallas say something about that. I recall some sort of controversy about what Oswald actually said to her. Maybe it's not confirmed about any bomb. But even Bugs said he wrote the book as if he were in court, so can anyone blame him for the shotgun approach; just throw everything including speculation at the jury and see what sticks. In the so called 'shotgun fallacy' the ideal situation is to fire all barrels (no matter how silly some things seem to some people), with the goal of getting people to start to think that there's so much to it that it must be true.

Someone once said that trials are not about the truth. They are about who wins the argument.

Exactly.  Bugliosi's only tool is lawyer rhetoric, so that's what he goes with.