Vincent Bugliosi - More radical than you'd expect

[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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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

I bet (you think) you have.....but are not going too clueless to say, right?

Btw... the escalation of nastiness on your part is becoming a good way to measure the increasing level of your frustration with your total lack of ability to present and/or defend an even remotely persuasive argument.

[Richard Smith]

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?

Maybe take a look at the title:  Reclaiming History.  You can't seriously believe that there was a huge market for an 8lb 1600+ page book.  That book was intended to rebut the loons who for decades have spread all manner of lies.  It was an important book to begin reestablishing the truth about the assassination of an American president. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Maybe take a look at the title:  Reclaiming History.  You can't seriously believe that there was a huge market for an 8lb 1600+ page book.  That book was intended to rebut the loons who for decades have spread all manner of lies.  It was an important book to begin reestablishing the truth about the assassination of an American president.

As expected, no answer to the very simple question why a publisher would pay Bugs an six-figure advance for a book that was not expected to sell. Typical "Richard"!

Maybe take a look at the title:  Reclaiming History.  You can't seriously believe that there was a huge market for an 8lb 1600+ page book.

History is what it is. So why would anybody feel the need to reclaim history? Even less so if there was no market for it....

It was an important book to begin reestablishing the truth about the assassination of an American president.

Actually, no it wasn't. It was a vain attempt to explain away all the massive discrepancies in what was supposed to be a "rock solid" case but never was.

[Richard Smith]

As expected, no answer to the very simple question why a publisher would pay Bugs an six-figure advance for a book that was not expected to sell. Typical "Richard"!

Maybe take a look at the title:  Reclaiming History.  You can't seriously believe that there was a huge market for an 8lb 1600+ page book.

History is what it is. So why would anybody feel the need to reclaim history? Even less so if there was no market for it....

It was an important book to begin reestablishing the truth about the assassination of an American president.

Actually, no it wasn't. It was a vain attempt to explain away all the massive discrepancies in what was supposed to be a "rock solid" case but never was.

I gave you the answer.  You just didn't like it.  Again, do you think there was a huge market for a 1600+ page book on the JFK assassination?  If not, why do you think the publisher paid for it?  Why don't you try to provide an answer for once instead of playing the endless contrarian?  Publishers often publish books that they know will not make any money.  They have plenty of rubes who will buy best sellers.  That allows them the luxury of publishing more intellectual books that appeal to a smaller group.  They may have received positive media press for the Bugs book.  He was a big name but they certainly didn't expect to sell many copies.

[Bill Chapman]

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

I bet (you think) you have.....but are not going too clueless to say, right?

Btw... the escalation of nastiness on your part is becoming a good way to measure the increasing level of your frustration with your total lack of ability to present and/or defend an even remotely persuasive argument.

I don't have to have an idea as to why Bugliosi wrote his book: He told us himself, fool.

In the meantime:
> No frustration required on my part, let alone an 'increasing level' of same, Sluggo.
> No point arguing about who killed who (so-to-speak), when said who killed who was witnessed doing just that @Tippit, while Rosetta-stoning Kennedy in the process, Mr Pretend-Lawyer.