|
They lead to further questions that are even nuttier.Finally, I am compelled to remark on how similar are conspiracy theorists and people of religious faith in terms of making assertions that are exasperatingly difficult to refute, NOT because they are compelling or make sense, but because a negative is nearly impossible to prove. I am not going to engage anyone here or respond to any comments. Over the years, I have weighed one side against the other, and the simpler story just carries more weight. All I know is that for me, personally, the argument that Oswald acted alone makes more sense than any conspiracy theory.
Excellent book. I cannot prove there is no God, I cannot prove there are no unicorns living inside the moon, and I cannot prove that our own government did not have JFK killed or did not bring down the World Trade Center. Many of the questions that the doubters raise are intriguing, but when thought through, they seem more and more fantastic. I think Oswald acted alone.
It is more believable. I have neither the time nor the energy.I'll leave thankless onuses like that to Vincent Bugliosi, who, in my opinion, has done a fine job. I always have, from the day I first heard the news back in 1963. I can't prove anything.
It is neither entertaining nor enlightening.[For those who are truly interested in how the commission operated and why it arrived at the conclusions it did, the authoritative work was written by respected historian Gerald D. He no doubt believes that his disrespectful, acerbic manner appears clever or witty but his bile-spewing tactics reveal how little faith he has in his own conclusion. Kennedy's murder was the result of conspiracy. In the face of the massive documentary record we now have at our disposal proving the exact opposite to be true, it is completely ridiculous for Bugliosi to make that statement in this millennium. He appears to relish in making sweeping, derogatory generalizations such as, "Ninety-nine percent of the conspiracy community are not, of course, writers and authors. His book is practically brimming over with phrases such as "must have," "reason to believe," "most likely" and "probably." This over-use of the hypothetical may be standard practice in a court room, but it is not how history should be written. But he does say it, and he apparently expects us to take his word for it. Firstly, the tests to which he is referring have been covered countless times by numerous critics including Mark Lane in his 1966 book, Rush to Judgment and Sylvia Meagher in her acclaimed 1967 work, Accessories After the Fact.
For confirmation of Oswald's ability to pull off the assassination, this test was about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Reclaiming History made me laugh; out loud. McKnight; Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why - a book that Bugliosi lists in his bibliography but either did not read or failed to comprehend] But Bugliosi makes clear from the outset, indeed from his presumptuous title, that apologising for the Warren Commission is not the only purpose of his book. And secondly, the "duplication" was achieved by drastically altering the firing conditions and using riflemen far superior to Oswald - who was teased by his fellow marines due to his inability to qualify with his rifle. A few pages into his lengthy introduction, Bugliosi writes, ".the [Warren] Commission's conduct throughout the investigation clearly shows that its members only had one objective, to discover the truth of what happened." Ludicrous. Army, using Oswald's own Mannlicher Carcano rifle, not only duplicated what Oswald did, but improved on Oswald's time." Nothing Bugliosi is alleging here is in any way acquainted with the facts. Its primary intention is to silence the critics or, as he likes to call them, "conspiracy buffs." Bugliosi writes that "the majority" of conspiracy theorists, "knowingly mislead their readers by lies, omissions and deliberately distorting the official record." He also claims that when confronted with contradictory evidence, the critics resort to one of two tactics, either "twist, warp and distort the evidence" or "simply ignore it." These are strong and in some cases true words. Not when author Vincent Bugliosi was attempting to be humorous by making one of his numerous sneering, sarcastic remarks at the expense of those who dare to believe that John F.
These conspiracy `buffs' are obsessed.and actually attend conspiracy-oriented conventions.most of them are as kooky as a three-dollar bill." It is obvious that Bugliosi needs to paint a negative picture of the JFK research community as a whole in order to make his own theory more palatable. It fails because, despite Bugliosi's assurances that his only master and mistress "are the facts and objectivity," he commits the exact same sins of which he accuses the conspiracy theorists - and adds a few more. And Bugliosi's treatment of this issue conclusively demonstrates that when faced with evidence he does not like, he is ready to do exactly what he says the critics are prone to do, "simply ignore it." Nonetheless, in his childish and unscholarly way, Bugliosi continues to hurl insults at the conspiracy believers. For the Army test, three rifleman, all rated as "Masters" by the National Rifle Association, fired at three stationary targets, rather than a moving one, from a tower thirty feet lower than the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. For example, Bugliosi states in his introduction that conspiracy theorists have been erroneously claiming for years that no one has ever duplicated the shooting feat the Warren Commission attributed to Oswald, and implies that critics have perpetuated this supposed falsehood by ignoring evidence found in the Warren Commission volumes.
He consistently fills his narrative with hypothetical instances in place of actual evidence and expects the reader to take his word for it. Bugliosi's ego would never let him admit it, but Reclaiming History spectacularly fails to live up to its intention of settling the controversy. Far from sticking to the facts, Reclaiming History is far and away the most factually inept, theory driven and speculative book ever written on the Kennedy assassination. As the old saying goes; an empty can rattles the most. But when he was being sincere.
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth," he says, "is a little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." And, "The conspiracy theorists are so brazen that they tell lies.about verifiable, documentary evidence." For the most part, Bugliosi sees no need to make a distinction between the responsible critic and the outlandish theorist, preferring instead to tar all with the same brush. "On page 446 of volume 3," he writes, "we learn that way back in 1964, one `Specialist Miller' of the U.S. This type of attitude, "I'm right because I say I am and my saying so proves it" can be seen throughout his tedious 1600 page tome. But the exact same charges can be fairly levelled at Bugliosi himself.
Fritz to the Oswald's and their unusual circle of acquaintances. Well, you don't need another analysis of this tome. And the accompanying CD of endnotes (which, if printed would be as long as the book) contains even more minutia which proves to be fascinating if you can find the time to scan through it on your computer screen without massive eyestrain. While the purpose of the book is to debunk the conspiracy theories (which it does well, I believe) I think many readers will be pleasantly engrossed with the many background portraits which make what I thought would be a rather dry read into a long, but unexpectedly interesting historical reference work. Let me just say that I was put off with the length of the book. However, when I bought it on a closeout and finally began to read it, I was fascinated with the myriad of details, particularly about all the various characters -- from Lyndon Johnson, Jack Ruby and Capt.
Bugliosi makes in reference to our book - that there is no credible evidence that Malcolm Wallace murdered Henry Marshall. On other occasions, Johnson would get bundles of cash from Daddy and distribute it himself. It makes me wonder how many other distortions exist within his books pages. (Who also included another LBJ friend - Polk Shelton) He also leaves out an important snippet from an intelligence file included in our book:(quote from "The Men on the Sixth Floor")"And apparently the Johnson influence went even deeper. Lets not start the process by misnaming the story's main character. Let me explain.
Wallace was convicted in 1952 of killing John Douglas Kinser of Austin. Carter died of natural causes in Arlington (Va). An autopsy by Harris County Medical Examiner Joseph Jachimczyk revealed that Marshall suffered not only five gunshot wounds to his lower left abdomen but also carbon monoxide poisoning and a head injury. Although Mr.
Marshall said her family always believed her husband had been murdered. Agriculture Secretary Orville Freeman said Marshall had been the only man who could provide some of the answers to questions about Estes' involvement in the cotton allotment program. In our acknowledgements, Mark and I express our thanks to the many researchers, writers and witnesses who have helped us along the way. Actually, the reason was disclosed. Cofer, a longtime LBJ confidant, had represented Johnson in the Jim Wells County "Box 13" voter fraud case in 1948. Senate.Cofer defended Estes in his 1962 fraud trial.
And Loy never responded by saying it was "right good." Bugliosi then takes his fourth punch with a rather silly observation. Sources said Estes' testimony implicated:Johnson, who had just been elected vice president. Senator Sam Rayburn's funeral and "asked about Loy's ability as a marksman." Factor, he says, responds by saying "it was right good." That is not what happened. In Wallace's Naval intelligence file, supplied to us, (dated 20 July, 1961) Johnson is alluded to as bribing Bob Long, the prosecuting attorney in the case.
Peoples, who persuaded Estes to testify before the grand jury Tuesday, refused to name the people whom Estes implicated in the conspiracy."I asked him (Estes) why he didn't testify at the first grand jury in 1962, and he said if he had, he would have been a dead man," said John Paschall, the district attorney.Paschall said records from the 1962 grand jury revealed that Marshall approved 138 cotton allotments for Estes from Jan. Estes and his family have repeatedly said that Estes was a political ally of LBJ, and that Estes made repeated campaign contributions to LBJ's campaigns. Barrett when I returned from Dallas. L. Bugliosi makes is concerning the murder trial of Mac Wallace in 1952. Lets see.The second paragraph contains the first annoying problem. AVENT, both assistant district attorneys who assisted in the procurement of SUBJECT's file, added their comments concerning rumors which persisted at the time of SUBJECT's trial.
One very strong reason is found in chapter 13 in our book - The Estes Documents. Johnson assumed the presidency on the death of John F. But there is ample reason to believe that Wallace was the murderer. Mark and Loy were both quarantined for a period of many weeks together in the prison hospital. The following quote is from page 4 of the 19 page file, paragraph 10. Testimony in that case revealed that Kinser had been having an affair with Wallace's wife.
Called to testify before a 1962 grand jury investigating Marshall's death, Estes repeatedly invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination, according to press reports at the time."Daddy's silence. He received a five-year suspended prison sentence. In fact, the "dark hand of LBJ" can be seen in another murder - that of Henry Marshall.And that was the sixth mistake that Mr. "I feel that that was done to make sure there was no opportunity of implicating Lyndon Johnson during any testimony or cross examination," Ms. Below is a news story of the confession that Mr.Bugliosi for some reason left out:(quote) By David Hanners Staff writer of The News. A response By Glen Sample to Vincent Bugliosi's critique of "The Men on the Sixth Floor" contained in his Book "Reclaiming History." Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History", a five pound monster of a book, is thought by many to be the nail in the coffin of conspiracy theorists.
Johnson's sister died in 1961.However, Horace Busby, a close friend of Johnson's, said Johnson met Wallace only once, when Carter brought Wallace to Johnson's home in Washington. I can assure you that the authors did believe their story. 7, 1986) by Bill Adler, which added further support to a "fixed" jury in the Wallace case:"Not long after the trial, several of the jurors telephoned Doug Kinser's parents to apologize for voting for a suspended sentence, but said they did so only because threats had been made against their families, according to Al Kinser, a nephew of Kinser's who along with his father, still runs the Pitch and Putt golf course." (end quote)Mr. Marshall Clint Peoples, who as a Texas Ranger captain began investigating the Murder in 1962, said Thursday that Marshall "was blowing the whistle" on Estes' scheme to defraud the government's cotton allotment program. The authors see the dark hand of LBJ in the very light sentence, since Wallace's lawyer, John Cofer, was one of LBJ's main lawyers in his successful post-election legal battle for the U.S Senate against former governor Coke Stevenson in 1948. He confirmed the above information, and told me without hesitation that in his own mind, he is absolutely sure, beyond doubt, that Malcolm Wallace had the help of Lyndon Johnson in his legal battle.Much later, we found The Texas Observer article (Nov. Department of Agriculture official in charge of the federal cotton allotment program, sources said.
WILDER alleged that Bob LONG, former district Attorney, was reported to have been the recipient of valuable property in the city of Austin as a result of his suppression of certain aspects involving political ramifications." (end quote)Also William Barrett, the famous newspaper writer from Dallas, was convinced of LBJ's involvement in the Wallace murder trial. Factor told no one else this story. Mr. The fifth misrepresentation that Mr. But prior to these letters, Estes appeared before a Robertson County Texas grand jury and testified under oath to the same thing. Justice Department and Billie Sol Estes, the fact remains that in 1984 Billie Sol Estes names Malcolm Wallace as the killer.
Marshall had resisted attempts to transfer him from Bryan to Agriculture Department headquarters in Washington in order to silence him. These are six examples of how Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" has distorted the facts of our book. Now, this may seem a small point, but it was definitely a red flag for me, because after all, this is supposed to be the last word in the JFK case; the crushing blow to "conspiracy buffs" the world over. Two months later, U.S.
Estes wrote."It should be clear by now that it was Lyndon Johnson who paved the way for the preferential treatment Daddy received from the Agriculture Department," she wrote."(end quote) There is more evidence that Malcolm Wallace was the murderer of Henry Marshall, but space on this venue does not allow for it. Estes, who was given immunity from prosecution to testify before a Robertson County grand jury Tuesday, told grand jurors that Johnson felt pressure to silence Henry Harvey Marshall of Bryan, a regional U.S. He misnames my main character.He calls Loy Factor "Lawrence Lloyd Factor, a Chickasaw Indian from Fillmore, Oklahoma.Actually, Lawrence Loy Factor was his name. Indeed, his experience as a prosecutor has served him well in his response to some of the silly JFK assassination theories that have been forwarded over the decades. The SUBJECT referred to is Malcolm Wallace: "Billy Roy WILDER and Richard C.
Agriculture Department economist. Wallace, whom sources said Estes named as the triggerman in Marshall's murder, at one time had dated Johnson's sister, Josefa, according to a friend of the Johnson family who asked not to be identified. (NOT a shotgun as Bugliosi states) His death originally was ruled a suicide by a local justice of the peace, but the ruling came into question a year later when news broke of Marshall's investigation of Estes' cotton allotments.U.S. Mr. Wallace was sentenced to a five-year prison term, which was suspended.Wallace was represented in his 1952 trial by Austin criminal defense lawyer John Cofer, now deceased.
Bugliosi describes as a "pathetic story" that no rational person would believe. Ms. S. Glen Sample In a 1986 interview with the Dallas Times Herald, D. Franklin, Texas - "Convicted swindler Billie Sol Estes told a grand jury that Lyndon B. Less than a year later, Estes' multi-million dollar empire - built on non-existent grain storage elevators and cotton allotments he obtained fraudulently - collapsed.In March 1962, Estes was indicted on fraud charges.
Actually "Reclaiming History" quotes Robin Ramsay's ("Who Shot JFK). Their friendship grew, and thus Loy's trust in Mark allowed him to disclose this secret that previously had only been revealed to Loy's deceased wife. allowed Lyndon Johnson to become president," Estes' daughter, Pam Estes, wrote in a book about her father titled BILLIE SOL, which was released last week."During that time, Daddy had been supplying Lyndon Johnson with large infusions of cash, not only for his own political needs but for people Johnson himself chose to help."Sometimes Johnson would send people like Ralph Yarborough directly to Daddy for fund-raising help. Johnson, one of the jurors in the Kinser case, said that he was the only juror who favored an outright acquittal for Kinser and that he forced the guilty-with-a-suspended-sentence verdict by threatening to cause a hung jury if he didn't get his way." (end quote)While most of the above quote is true, Bugliosi asserts that our "seeing the dark hand of LBJ" is a strange assumption on our part. The bruise to Marshall's head occurred before his death, Jachimczyk said, and would have been incapacitating."Sybil Marshall, the wife of the slain Agriculture Department official, said Thursday, "I'm kind of shocked. Bugliosi neglects to tell his readers that D.L. I don't know what to think." Mrs.
Since those transactions were all cash, there is no reliable way of knowing how much money went to Johnson or what became of it."Daddy has steadfastly refused to talk about that part of his life with anyone, even me," she wrote. 17 to June 3, 1961. "He was a good man."Estes, despite two federal trials and subsequent prison terms in the following two decades, steadfastly had refused to discuss his relationship with Lyndon Johnson or the Marshall murder. John Connally. Bugliosi valiantly tries to discredit the source of these letters to and from the U. Bugliosi describes wrongly that Wallace approached Factor at the funeral of U.S. Twenty years later, when Mark and I eventually found and interviewed him, he was afraid to talk and even refused further interviews.
Wallace, whom sources said Estes identified as Marshall's killer, previously had avoided a prison term on a 1952 murder conviction in Austin. 22, 1963. He writes: (quote) "In 1952, he (Wallace) was convicted in Austin, Texas, of murdering a golf pro, John Douglas Kinser, who had been having an affair with Wallace's estranged wife. The sources said Estes testified that the group feared the official would link Estes' illegal activities to Johnson. The sources, who asked to remain anonymous because grand jury testimony is secret under state law, said Estes testified that he had attended at least three meetings with Johnson - two in Washington and one at the Driskill Hotel in Austin - during which they discussed the need to stop Marshall from disclosing Estes' fraudulent business dealings and his ties with Johnson.Estes testified that he later balked at the idea of killing Marshall, according to sources. It was then that Loy made the observation that the president lacked security.
Bugliosi is the liberty he takes in explaining the details of our book. Carter, a close Johnson political aide and troubleshooter who later served as Executive Director and Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee. statement that the authors (Sample & Collom) have "solved the case". Attorney Cofer was one of many players in this trial, tightly manipulated by Lyndon Johnson and his Texas connections. "They not only allowed us our fantasy, but they encouraged it", is what we wrote.
Wallace introduced himself to Factor and the two men conversed for some time, until finally President Kennedy arrived by limousine. Like shooting fish in a barrel, Bugliosi takes them all on, dismissing them one after another. Hundreds of e-mails and letters from all over the world have voiced the same sentiment from others also. For example in the same paragraph as the misnamed Loy Factor occurs, he says that Factor, for "some undisclosed reason" decided to tell his cellmate, Mark Collom, the "Whopper" of a story about his participation with the assassins of JFK. Then the conversation turned to Loy's interest in guns and hunting. Hospital Sept.
21, 1971.Malcolm Everett (Mac) Wallace, the president of the 1945 student body at the University of Texas at Austin and a onetime U. S. He died at his ranch in Stonewall, Texas, on Jan. How Cofer would have the power to bring about Wallace's light sentence, the authors don't say. For this I applaud him.I have a few problems, however, with the way he has described my research. in compiling the information for our story.
He had been shot five times, and his bolt-action.22 caliber rifle was found nearby. Mark helped Loy by reading his trial transcripts and helping Loy with his case. We report on this in our book:(Quote from "The Men on the Sixth Floor") I was able to contact Mr. I am the author of "The Men on the Sixth Floor", a book that Mr. But, Peoples said, "The facts are that Henry Marshall was told to approve them (Estes' cotton allotments)." Before 1961, Estes, a Pecos millionaire who had made much of his money through federally subsidized farm programs, had become a key Democratic power broker and fund-raiser for the campaigns of Johnson, Yarborough and then-Gov.
It was Loy who broached the subject of his ability as a marksman, not Mac Wallace. Bugliosi describes this as a "Freudian slip", saying that the statement actually meant that the authors didn't believe what they themselves were writing. 22, 1973.Clifton C. Kennedy, on Nov.
The second bone I have to pick with Mr. It was only through our patience, gentle coaxing and Loy's trust in his old friend, that he agreed to talk further.Thirdly, a description of Loy Factor's initial introduction to Mac Wallace lacks integrity and is a thinly disguised arrogant barb, designed to malign Loy and his story. He was elected in 1964 to a full term, but chose in 1968 not to seek re-election. "I can't believe he would do that to himself (commit suicide), she said. Days later, a state district judge in Bryan authorized the exhumation of Marshall's body. Estes said in her book that Cofer was hired "at the insistence of Lyndon Johnson."Cofer rested Estes' case without calling any defense witnesses.
Johnson was one of four men who planned the 1961 murder of an agriculture official, three sources close to the grand jury said Thursday. Bugliosi strives to give the impression, that Factor was spinning this tale to anyone who would listen, when the opposite is true. Bugliosi implies that anyone "seeing the dark hand of LBJ" in the murder trial of Mac Wallace is irrational. Because of the slim edge of 87 votes he received from Box 13, Johnson won a runoff election against Coke Stevenson for the U.S.
Decades later, when Mark and I found Loy in rural Oklahoma, it was obvious that a bond still existed between the two men. Wallace died, sources said, in a Northeast Texas automobile accident in 1971.A relative found Marshall's body June 3, 1961, on his Robertson County ranch. I disagree. We also thank our wives, who, as one can imagine, were inconvenienced by our long ordeal of travel, research, interviews, time and expense etc.
Johnson was the first cousin and good friend of Gus Lanier, who during the trial sat at the defense table of Wallace and his main lawyers.
which would take quite a lot of time. But as he writes, in a case like this with a huge number of involved persons, witnesses and evidences, inconsistencies have to be accepted since they are a natural part of such an investigation.I think it's best to dive into certain aspects of this case every once in a while instead of trying to read the book cover to cover. Bugliosi really tried his best to bring the known facts to the front and not shy away from presenting inconsistencies and contradictions in the case.
Of course, size (and weight in this case) don't necessarily matter, but here it is the result of the comprehensiveness of this book.Roughly 300 pages are devoted to a minute by minute representation of the day of the assassination and the following days. (And I haven't even checked out the hundreds of pages of foot- and endnotes which are collected on an additional CD-ROM)It may be that Bulgiosis is "preaching to the choir" here (I was already convinced that Oswald was the lone assassin before I read this book), but his repeated arguments are simply so convincing that it's hard to understand why anyone would still believe in a conspiracy (but human psychology and the "need to believe" certain things should not be underestimated). This is an impressive piece of work.
I haven't read too much of the book by now (I have listened to the audio book however) - and it will take a considerable amount of time to actually do so - but even flipping to other chapters and skimming over the paragraphs, it appears to me that Mr. But that doesn't take away from the enjoyment I have every time when I open up the 5 pound monster. The bulk of the book deals with all the different aspects of the investigation ("What did happen") and with the debunking of basically every conspiracy theory out there ("What did not happen").
For me, this is the "fun part", where looney theories are picked apart (usually in multiple ways).
|
