Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong
I obviously can't assess the issue of what evidence Bugliosi didn't examine unless you're much more specific.
You probably didn't notice in the post of mine you butchered gave the title of a book on the subject. That would be a place to go if you had any sincere interest in the case.
Quote:
But I can say from a two-minute skim of that work's bibliography that it cites at least two hundred sources published between 1990 and 2006, in addition to the select committee report and twenty or thirty government reports subsequent to the warren commission report. If you're intending to suggest that Bugliosi wasn't a meticulous researcher, I think you're wrong.
Unless a person is well versed on the subject I'd venture to say that it takes a little more than a bibliography to have an understanding of developments over the past 50 years or so.
For instance, Bugliosi states that Jack Ruby was 'no more a mobster than you or I...'
While I can't vouch for Bugliosi's mob connections, I can certify that I don't have the links to organized crime that Ruby is documented to have. Anyone who can claim Ruby
wasn't mob connected is a stone cold lunatic or a liar pushing an agenda.
Quote:
Caveat: I'm biased on this issue. Bugliosi signed a copy of his book for me with an affectionate note with respect to my father, to whom Bugliosi referred in the book twenty or so times.
That's interesting. So you have some family ties in this story.
Quote:
My view: anyone that doesn't think Oswald was the sole killer is a stone-cold loon.
Some folks are climate change deniers, some are creationists, and some are believers in the 'lone nut' story.
It takes all kinds...