Vincent Bugliosi Was A Liar...

***Ben Holmes*** · 03-31-2017, 10:18 PM

"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity. I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never came across." - Vincent Bugliosi

"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." - Reclaiming History, pg 413

"Dr. CARRICO - Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth." WC Testimony.

Vincent Bugliosi was a liar.

Hollywood · 03-31-2017, 10:27 PM

(03-31-2017, 10:18 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: "I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity. I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never came across." - Vincent Bugliosi

"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." - Reclaiming History, pg 413

"Dr. CARRICO - Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth." WC Testimony.

Vincent Bugliosi was a liar.

VB was referring to the wound to the internal trachea which was ragged - Carrico was referring to the wound on the surface of the skin which was more symmetrical, possibly due to Kennedy's necktie pulling the skin tight, producing a neater looking wound. Dr. Baden surmised this at the HSCA hearings. Simple solution, nothing nefarious - Bugliosi knew the intense scrutiny his book would receive - to publish a lie in that situation would have been the act of a rank amateur - this is a silly, paranoid charge - boring. Read his statement you posted above - you may disagree, but no dishonesty was involved - to side with a huckster like Mark Lane and castigate a man with Bugliosi's reputation reveals obvious, illogical, hysterical bias. Read the medical reports regarding the trachea - "ragged"

***Ben Holmes*** · 03-31-2017, 10:45 PM

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:18 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: "I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity. I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never came across." - Vincent Bugliosi

"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." - Reclaiming History, pg 413

"Dr. CARRICO - Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth." WC Testimony.

Vincent Bugliosi was a liar.

VB was referring to the wound to the internal trachea which was ragged

No... not possible.

This was in reference to the determination of an entry wound or an exit wound.

That can ONLY BE DETERMINED FROM THE WOUND IN THE SKIN.

You cannot produce any description of the tracheal wounding that would lead someone to understand which direction the bullet was traveling.

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Carrico was referring to the wound on the surface of the skin which was more symmetrical, possibly due to Kennedy's necktie pulling the skin tight, producing a neater looking wound.

This is the ONLY wound that could be used to determine trajectory. And indeed, it's SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE to study this case for more than 20 years and not understand that the APPEARANCE of the throat wound was evidence for an entry wound. BUGLIOSI COULD NOT HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

Yet he blatantly lied about it... claiming that Carrico & Perry had described this wound as "ragged."

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Dr. Baden surmised this at the HSCA hearings. Simple solution, nothing nefarious - Bugliosi knew the intense scrutiny his book would receive - to publish a lie in that situation would have been the act of a rank amateur - this is a silly, paranoid charge - boring.

Then you'll be happy to cite ANY FORENSIC TEXT AT ALL that describes using an INTERNAL injury to determine the direction of a bullet.

But ... of course... you won't.

You can't.

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Read his statement you posted above - you may disagree, but no dishonesty was involved - to side with a huckster like Mark Lane and castigate a man with Bugliosi's reputation reveals obvious, illogical, hysterical bias. Read the medical reports regarding the trachea - "ragged"

It's interesting to recall that you've previously denigrated Mark Lane, yet continue to refuse to provide any evidence for it.

I've challenged you to provide a quote from "Rush To Judgment" - the page number, then a cite to the evidence that he was lying about - and you've thus far refused to do so.

I'm now challenging you to produce a cite to any forensics that routinely uses INTERNAL injuries to determine the course of a bullet.

Or, of course, you could also cite from Reclaiming History where he was explaining the throat wound's appearance as an entry wound.

But my prediction - you won't.

Hollywood · 03-31-2017, 10:49 PM

(03-31-2017, 10:45 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:18 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: "I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity. I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never came across." - Vincent Bugliosi

"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." - Reclaiming History, pg 413

"Dr. CARRICO - Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth." WC Testimony.

Vincent Bugliosi was a liar.

VB was referring to the wound to the internal trachea which was ragged

No... not possible.

This was in reference to the determination of an entry wound or an exit wound.

That can ONLY BE DETERMINED FROM THE WOUND IN THE SKIN.

You cannot produce any description of the tracheal wounding that would lead someone to understand which direction the bullet was traveling.

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Carrico was referring to the wound on the surface of the skin which was more symmetrical, possibly due to Kennedy's necktie pulling the skin tight, producing a neater looking wound.

This is the ONLY wound that could be used to determine trajectory. And indeed, it's SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE to study this case for more than 20 years and not understand that the APPEARANCE of the throat wound was evidence for an entry wound. BUGLIOSI COULD NOT HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

Yet he blatantly lied about it... claiming that Carrico & Perry had described this wound as "ragged."

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Dr. Baden surmised this at the HSCA hearings. Simple solution, nothing nefarious - Bugliosi knew the intense scrutiny his book would receive - to publish a lie in that situation would have been the act of a rank amateur - this is a silly, paranoid charge - boring.

Then you'll be happy to cite ANY FORENSIC TEXT AT ALL that describes using an INTERNAL injury to determine the direction of a bullet.

But ... of course... you won't.

You can't.

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Read his statement you posted above - you may disagree, but no dishonesty was involved - to side with a huckster like Mark Lane and castigate a man with Bugliosi's reputation reveals obvious, illogical, hysterical bias. Read the medical reports regarding the trachea - "ragged"

It's interesting to recall that you've previously denigrated Mark Lane, yet continue to refuse to provide any evidence for it.

I've challenged you to provide a quote from "Rush To Judgment" - the page number, then a cite to the evidence that he was lying about - and you've thus far refused to do so.

I'm now challenging you to produce a cite to any forensics that routinely uses INTERNAL injuries to determine the course of a bullet.

Or, of course, you could also cite from Reclaiming History where he was explaining the throat wound's appearance as an entry wound.

But my prediction - you won't.

So, a trained, experienced forensic expert cannot observe internal injuries to determine missile direction? Nonsense.

***Ben Holmes*** · 03-31-2017, 10:53 PM

(03-31-2017, 10:49 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:45 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:18 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: "I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity. I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never came across." - Vincent Bugliosi

"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." - Reclaiming History, pg 413

"Dr. CARRICO - Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth." WC Testimony.

Vincent Bugliosi was a liar.

VB was referring to the wound to the internal trachea which was ragged

No... not possible.

This was in reference to the determination of an entry wound or an exit wound.

That can ONLY BE DETERMINED FROM THE WOUND IN THE SKIN.

You cannot produce any description of the tracheal wounding that would lead someone to understand which direction the bullet was traveling.

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Carrico was referring to the wound on the surface of the skin which was more symmetrical, possibly due to Kennedy's necktie pulling the skin tight, producing a neater looking wound.

This is the ONLY wound that could be used to determine trajectory. And indeed, it's SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE to study this case for more than 20 years and not understand that the APPEARANCE of the throat wound was evidence for an entry wound. BUGLIOSI COULD NOT HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

Yet he blatantly lied about it... claiming that Carrico & Perry had described this wound as "ragged."

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Dr. Baden surmised this at the HSCA hearings. Simple solution, nothing nefarious - Bugliosi knew the intense scrutiny his book would receive - to publish a lie in that situation would have been the act of a rank amateur - this is a silly, paranoid charge - boring.

Then you'll be happy to cite ANY FORENSIC TEXT AT ALL that describes using an INTERNAL injury to determine the direction of a bullet.

But ... of course... you won't.

You can't.

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Read his statement you posted above - you may disagree, but no dishonesty was involved - to side with a huckster like Mark Lane and castigate a man with Bugliosi's reputation reveals obvious, illogical, hysterical bias. Read the medical reports regarding the trachea - "ragged"

It's interesting to recall that you've previously denigrated Mark Lane, yet continue to refuse to provide any evidence for it.

I've challenged you to provide a quote from "Rush To Judgment" - the page number, then a cite to the evidence that he was lying about - and you've thus far refused to do so.

I'm now challenging you to produce a cite to any forensics that routinely uses INTERNAL injuries to determine the course of a bullet.

Or, of course, you could also cite from Reclaiming History where he was explaining the throat wound's appearance as an entry wound.

But my prediction - you won't.

So, a trained, experienced forensic expert cannot observe internal injuries to determine missile direction? Nonsense.

But my prediction - you won't. (And didn't...)

Hollywood · 03-31-2017, 10:58 PM

(03-31-2017, 10:53 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:49 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:45 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:18 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: "I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity. I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never came across." - Vincent Bugliosi

"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." - Reclaiming History, pg 413

"Dr. CARRICO - Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth." WC Testimony.

Vincent Bugliosi was a liar.

VB was referring to the wound to the internal trachea which was ragged

No... not possible.

This was in reference to the determination of an entry wound or an exit wound.

That can ONLY BE DETERMINED FROM THE WOUND IN THE SKIN.

You cannot produce any description of the tracheal wounding that would lead someone to understand which direction the bullet was traveling.

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Carrico was referring to the wound on the surface of the skin which was more symmetrical, possibly due to Kennedy's necktie pulling the skin tight, producing a neater looking wound.

This is the ONLY wound that could be used to determine trajectory. And indeed, it's SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE to study this case for more than 20 years and not understand that the APPEARANCE of the throat wound was evidence for an entry wound. BUGLIOSI COULD NOT HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

Yet he blatantly lied about it... claiming that Carrico & Perry had described this wound as "ragged."

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Dr. Baden surmised this at the HSCA hearings. Simple solution, nothing nefarious - Bugliosi knew the intense scrutiny his book would receive - to publish a lie in that situation would have been the act of a rank amateur - this is a silly, paranoid charge - boring.

Then you'll be happy to cite ANY FORENSIC TEXT AT ALL that describes using an INTERNAL injury to determine the direction of a bullet.

But ... of course... you won't.

You can't.

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Read his statement you posted above - you may disagree, but no dishonesty was involved - to side with a huckster like Mark Lane and castigate a man with Bugliosi's reputation reveals obvious, illogical, hysterical bias. Read the medical reports regarding the trachea - "ragged"

It's interesting to recall that you've previously denigrated Mark Lane, yet continue to refuse to provide any evidence for it.

I've challenged you to provide a quote from "Rush To Judgment" - the page number, then a cite to the evidence that he was lying about - and you've thus far refused to do so.

I'm now challenging you to produce a cite to any forensics that routinely uses INTERNAL injuries to determine the course of a bullet.

Or, of course, you could also cite from Reclaiming History where he was explaining the throat wound's appearance as an entry wound.

But my prediction - you won't.

So, a trained, experienced forensic expert cannot observe internal injuries to determine missile direction? Nonsense.

But my prediction - you won't. (And didn't...)

Didn't feel like it - it's just not that important - I'm just yanking your chain here....

***Ben Holmes*** · 03-31-2017, 11:07 PM

(03-31-2017, 10:58 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:53 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:49 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:45 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: VB was referring to the wound to the internal trachea which was ragged

No... not possible.

This was in reference to the determination of an entry wound or an exit wound.

That can ONLY BE DETERMINED FROM THE WOUND IN THE SKIN.

You cannot produce any description of the tracheal wounding that would lead someone to understand which direction the bullet was traveling.

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Carrico was referring to the wound on the surface of the skin which was more symmetrical, possibly due to Kennedy's necktie pulling the skin tight, producing a neater looking wound.

This is the ONLY wound that could be used to determine trajectory. And indeed, it's SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE to study this case for more than 20 years and not understand that the APPEARANCE of the throat wound was evidence for an entry wound. BUGLIOSI COULD NOT HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

Yet he blatantly lied about it... claiming that Carrico & Perry had described this wound as "ragged."

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Dr. Baden surmised this at the HSCA hearings. Simple solution, nothing nefarious - Bugliosi knew the intense scrutiny his book would receive - to publish a lie in that situation would have been the act of a rank amateur - this is a silly, paranoid charge - boring.

Then you'll be happy to cite ANY FORENSIC TEXT AT ALL that describes using an INTERNAL injury to determine the direction of a bullet.

But ... of course... you won't.

You can't.

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Read his statement you posted above - you may disagree, but no dishonesty was involved - to side with a huckster like Mark Lane and castigate a man with Bugliosi's reputation reveals obvious, illogical, hysterical bias. Read the medical reports regarding the trachea - "ragged"

It's interesting to recall that you've previously denigrated Mark Lane, yet continue to refuse to provide any evidence for it.

I've challenged you to provide a quote from "Rush To Judgment" - the page number, then a cite to the evidence that he was lying about - and you've thus far refused to do so.

I'm now challenging you to produce a cite to any forensics that routinely uses INTERNAL injuries to determine the course of a bullet.

Or, of course, you could also cite from Reclaiming History where he was explaining the throat wound's appearance as an entry wound.

But my prediction - you won't.

So, a trained, experienced forensic expert cannot observe internal injuries to determine missile direction? Nonsense.

But my prediction - you won't. (And didn't...)

Didn't feel like it - it's just not that important - I'm just yanking your chain here....

But my prediction - you won't. (And cannot...)

Patrick C · 05-06-2017, 02:10 PM

Well the simple fact is that the anterior neck wound was an exit - only those out there conspiracy nuts think it was an entry along with....

Two non transitting bullets
Two clandestinley removed bullets
Two bullets that disappeared
Cover up of the above

A shooter to the front of the limo - who no one saw
At least four shots, possibly five which only about 2% of the witnesses managed to hear....

And the list goes on.

Good points from Hollywood. [ad hominem removed]

***Ben Holmes*** · 05-06-2017, 03:58 PM

(05-06-2017, 02:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Well the simple fact is that the anterior neck wound was an exit - only those out there conspiracy nuts think it was an entry along with....

Your assertion isn't evidence. EVEN YOU are forced to admit that the medical evidence favors an entry wound. (and lest you be tempted to lie, I'm referring SPECIFICALLY to the medical description of the wound by those who actually saw it.)

(05-06-2017, 02:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Two non transitting bullets
Two clandestinley removed bullets
Two bullets that disappeared
Cover up of the above

A shooter to the front of the limo - who no one saw
At least four shots, possibly five which only about 2% of the witnesses managed to hear....

And the list goes on.

Good points from Hollywood. [ad hominem removed]

Of course, there's evidence for the above scenario that you're dismissing so lightly... for example, I can't get a SINGLE believer to tell me what was happening to JFK's body between the hours of 6:40pm and 8:00pm. Dr. Humes even admits that he first saw the body that early:

ARRB Testimony Wrote:GUNN - "When did you first see the BODY of the President"?
Dr HUMES - "I didn't look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I will guess 6:45 - 7:00

Now, I certainly don't expect you to pretend you were there at Bethesda nearly an hour and a half before the autopsy actually started, but I just have to laugh at the complete silence concerning this time frame...

Which supports the theory that bullets were removed from the body.

Patrick C · 05-07-2017, 06:46 PM

"EVEN YOU are forced to admit that the medical evidence favors an entry wound."

Like crap it does.

The medical evidence supports a transiting bullet as does the laws of physics and biomechanics....you know 2200 feet per second, soft tissue......

It is a no brainer.....no pun intended.....

Anyway, good to see that you are continuing to waste your time pontificating your nonsense...at least it keeps you out of the ocean - it can be dangerous out there you know with thise Carcharidons swimminga round....