Vincent Bugliosi Interview

Why have there been so many conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination? Curiously enough John F Kennedy, JFK, is one of the reasons. Why do I say that? Because John F. Kennedy was perhaps or arguably the most charismatic, attractive president that this country has ever had, people loved him - absolutely loved him. And when he died, they took it like a death in their family. Subconsciously - subconsciously this belief in a conspiracy in a way is hanging on to the memory of John F. Kennedy. They do not want to let him go. Now here is some evidence that what I am saying is true. And this is not in denigration of LBJ, JFK's successor. But if he had died or had been killed, I am talking about Lyndon Johnson, if he had been killed under the same identical precise circumstances that John F Kennedy was killed under, I am very confident that there wouldn't be one-tenth as much interest in the circumstances surrounding LBJ's death as there has been with respect to the death of JFK. So in a strange type of way, Kennedy himself is responsible for this continuing fascination and - and all these conspiracy theories because people do not want to let him go and arguing conspiracy in a way, in a subconscious way is their way of hanging on. I also believe however that people instinctively want to believe in a conspiracy theory in this case, why, because the belief that the powerful forces killed John F. Kennedy, because he was taking the nation in a direction that was antithetical to their particular interest. It gives more meaning to Kennedy's life and death. Certainly then the belief that he was killed by some lone nut who had a deranged mind, Jacqueline Kennedy the President's own wife, said that we can't even have the satisfaction of his dying for some cause like civil rights. And she said he had to be killed by some silly little communist. And she said it robbed his death of meaning. So in a strange type of way people feel that it gives more meaning to his life and death if he were killed as a result of the top level conspiracy. There is also the notion - it's illogical but people have it, why - because it's visceral that someone as inconsequential as Lee Harvey Oswald could possibly do something as consequential as killing the President of the United States. They feel that it's intellectually incongruous that someone whom they perceive to be a king as it were, could be struck down by someone whom they perceive to be a complete nonentity. Talking about Oswald you know, how can it be? I mean JFK is on top of the world, all his charisma, he is driving down the street, he is smiling, he is - he has got the whole world at his feet because you are so taken by his wit and charm and intelligence and a second later its all over with. People say well, wait a while; this has got to be more involved here. This got to be more involved. It can't be over in a second like that. Well the reality of course is that bullets are very democratic, you know, and they kill or maim whom ever they hit. And it doesn't take some one important to pull the trigger. But if I were to single out one reason more than any other, why people believe in a conspiracy theory as strongly as they do and it's quoting Goebbels Joseph Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister of Hitler's Third Reich, that if you push something at someone long enough eventually they are going to start buying it, particularly if they are not exposed to any contrary view. And that's all the American public has been hearing for 44 years. Through their torrent, their blizzard of books, radio and TV talk shows, movies, college lectures, over the years the shrill voice of the conspiracy theory has finally penetrated the consciousness of the American people and succeeded in completely destroying the legitimacy of the Warren Commission. They have discredited them completely and convinced the overwhelming majority of Americans that Oswald was either a part of some high level conspiracy or that he was just a patsy, completely innocent, framed by some exotic and elaborate group of conspirators ranging from anti-Castro Cuban exiles to organized crime working in the League with US intelligence. I would say that that is the main reason why people believe in a conspiracy in this case. That's all they have heard for 44 years and it had finally penetrated their consciousness. Actually, Reclaiming History sets itself apart from the other books in the case in several different ways. One of them is that it's the only book on the case that covers the entire case. No other book has even attempted to do that. Why, because the assassination thing is so - it's so vast that authors devote five years of their life just to write about one aspect of it. The CIA or the MOB or the Oswald or Ruby or the trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans, there is too much to write about the whole case. I, maybe you can call me a fool, whatever, I wrote about the entire case. It's the first book to ever cover the entire case. It's the most comprehensive book ever written on the case. In fact the Warren Report and the House Select Committee on Assassinations Report do not cover the ground covered in Reclaiming History. I think a second very different thing about the book is that it had always been the conventional wisdom prior to Reclaiming History. Even among people like myself, who believed that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone, even those people felt that there would never be a satisfactory resolution of this case. There was always going to be some doubt. Reclaiming History removes all of those doubts. Whether you believe it or not, you would have to read the book. It settles the case once and for all. The second way that Reclaiming History differs from all other books on the case is that it had always been the conventional wisdom that there would never be a satisfactory resolution of this case, that there was always going to be at least some doubt, everyone believed that, even those who, like me, believed that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone, they still would add - you know, by a way of footnote, but there is - this case is. you know, there is always going to be some doubt about it. Well, believe it or not and you'd have to have to read the book, if you were to believe it, Reclaiming History removes all doubts about this case. It settles the case once and for all, it's my very firm belief - very very confident that no reasonable, rational person and lets underline those words reasonable and rational, no reasonable, rational person can read this book can possibly read this book without being satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone. Thirdly, before this book, strangely enough, but it's a fact, no one had ever taken on all of this conspiracy theories and destroyed all of their theories and Reclaiming History does that. My editor Starling Lawrence said, you know Vince, it took a book like Reclaiming History to drive a stake into the heart of the conspiracy movement in this country, because they are not about to stop? But when they read this book they are going to be staggered by it you know by the insight and the sweep and they are going to have a tough, tough time getting around it. Also there is a great, great number of inferences, fresh new powerful inferences and observations about the case that had never been made before. And whatever strength I have, that's one of my strengths, has been a criminal prosecutor. Just take a piece of evidence and then draw powerful inference from it. And people say yeah, I hadn't thought about that. And the book is full of one powerful inference after another. So it differs from other books in many ways. If you look at the film, you see the head snap to the rear indicating what? Well it would indicate, if you just looked at film, that the shot came from the front where the grassy knoll is, not from behind where Lee Harvey Oswald was. But if you look at the individual frames, and you cannot see this if you look at the film - you have to look at the individual frames, at frame 312 the President's head - is okay. At frame 313, one 18th of the second later the President's head is pushed forward 2.3 inches, indicating what? Indicating a shot from the rear where Oswald was. So at the precise moment of impact - the moment of impact - that's the all important point, at impact his head is pushed forward and then at 314 to 321 there is a neuro muscular reaction, the head snapped to the rear. So when you just see the film and that's all people ever see, the head goes back to the rear, therefore the shot came from the front, Oswald was back here, it must have been a second gunman. But if you look at the individual frames and I have them in the book, I have frame 312 in the book and there is frame 313 and you can see the president's head is pushed forward 2.3 inches indicating what the shot from rear. There is no such thing as the magic bullet, this is a just an invention of the conspiracy theorists, what they do with their sketches, here is Kennedy and they put in their sketches, Connally seated directly in the front of him. Okay, a shot coming from the right rear where Oswald is, passing through soft tissue, everyone agrees, passing through soft tissue to hit Kennedy would have to do what? It would have to make a right turn in mid air and make a left turn to go on and hit Connally and the conspiracy theorists say, you know bullet don't even don't do that in cartoons and everyone starts to laugh. Well if you start off with an erroneous premise, everything that follows makes a heck a lot of sense. The one problem is that is wrong. Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy. The Zapruder film, individual photographs there is no question about it, he is seated in a jump suit he is seated in a jump seat six inches in from the door; he is seated to the left front of the President. So a bullet going from right rear of the President, passing through soft tissue would have no where else to go but hit John Connally, it had no where else to go, the orientation of Connally's body vis-à-vis Kennedy's was such that a bullet passing through soft tissue in Kennedy have to go on and hit Governor Connally. But if you put him to the right then it's got to make a right turn in mid air. So in London a doctor testified the defense, for Jury Spence, and he had Connally seated directly in front. And then I showed the jury that he actually wasn't seated directly in the front. But I went on from that point and I said Dr. Neil if the bullet that went through President Kennedy did not hit Governor Connally, I said then why didn't it tear up the interior of the limousine or hit the drivers. I don't know, I said well now, wait a while now, it didn't hit Connally you say, we know it didn't hit the interiors of the limousine, it didn't hit the driver, it must have zigzagged to the left. He said no, it did not have to zigzag to the left, I said then it hop, skip and jump over the car, he said you don't have do anything remarkable at all. I said, then what happened to it, he said I don't know. So who has got the magic bullet here? Is it the Warren Commission that everyone for 44 years has said, you know the magic bullet, it couldn't have happened, therefore the single bullet theory doesn't work, there is two gunmen, or do the conspiracy theorists have the magic bullet? They have got the only magic bullet in this case. The bullet passes through soft tissue and apparently vanishes into thin air, vanishes without a trace. It doesn't hit the interior of car, it doesn't hit the driver, just vanishes, now is it not a magic bullet? And yet they claim the magic bullet is one that made a right turn in mid air and then a left turn to go out to hit Connally. Well, it would only be that way if Connally was seated directly in front of Kennedy, but he wasn't, he was seated to his left front. The foreign invention, it's all moon shine. Well, I am sure that no group like the Mob was behind the Kennedy assassination for the simple reason that there is no evidence of it. If you search for 44 years to find evidence of Mob complicity and you come up with no evidence and there is no evidence, no credible evidence of Mob complicity, what is that? That's evidence of innocence. If you don't have evidence of guilt, that's evidence of innocence. And there is no credible evidence that organized crime was involved in this assassination in anyway what so ever. Number two, there is no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald had any connection at all with organized crime, no contact with them, or CIA or any of these other groups and believe me FBI conducted 25000 interviews in this case, they checked every breath that Oswald ever breath between the time he landed in New York from Russia in June of 62' to the date of assassination. It's almost impossible to believe that even that Oswald would have had contact with the CIA or Mob or what have you and the FBI would not know about it. So there is no evidence at all that Oswald ever had any connection with organized crime or CIA or any of these of other groups that the conspiracy theorists claim were behind the assassination. Lets assume that one of these groups for whatever reason and I reject it out of hand, this is just silly on its face, but let's just make the assumption that they were going to kill Kennedy. They didn't like what he was doing so let's kill him. Oswald is probably the last person on the face of the earth that they would go to. This guy is bonkers. This is a guy that defects to the Soviet Union, pre Gorbachev; I mean even today who the heck defects to the Soviet Union, its bleak. He goes over there pre Gorbachev, wants to become a citizen, is turned down, slashes his wrists, tries to commit suicide. So this is a person who is very, very unstable, unreliable, fiercely independent, has no track record at all, I mean the Mob, they kill people all the time but they get tight lipped professional assassins, people that have a track record with them. And all the Mob is going to go after the most important man on face in this earth, whose brother is the Attorney General of United States, and they are going to get a zany like Oswald who has no track record with them, it's silly on his face. Let's take it a step further, a step further. The Mob decides to kill or the CIA decides to kill Kennedy and they decide to get Oswald of all people to do their bidding for him. Let's see if where that takes us makes any sense, let's see if that notion makes any sense. After Oswald shot Kennedy and left the building one of two things would have happened. I will tell you what those two things are. The first thing I will try is the least likely thing that would happened if the Mob or the CIA of the Military Industrial Complex was behind the assassination, the least likely thing that would have happened is that there would have a car waiting for him and this car would have helped Oswald escape down to Mexico or wherever. They don't want their hit man to be apprehended and interrogated because eventually someone is going to put the hat on them, right? Okay, that's the likely scenario. The most likely scenario, come on, there would have been a car there that would have driven Oswald to his death, there is no question about it, it would have to be that way. Instead he is out on the street with 13 dollars in his pocket flagging down buses and cabs. Its ridiculous, the whole notion is absolutely ridiculous on its face. Jack Ruby idolized JFK, he thought he was the greatest man that ever lived, literally as one psychiatrist said, Jack Ruby loved John F Kennedy, took his death extremely hard, cried often on the assassination weekend. Ruby's sister Eva used to live in Los Angeles and I used to talk to her from time to time and she told me she said, you know when Kennedy died, she said my brother Jack cried harder than when ma and pa died. There was a lot of hatred against Oswald at the time and Ruby shared that hatred. In fact right after he killed Oswald he told the police that someone had to kill that son of a blank. You guys couldn't do it, so I think his hatred for Oswald and his love for the President certainly was one factor. But there is another factor here, that people who knew there is another factor here that people that knew Ruby talk about a quite a bit. Jack thought he was going to be a hero he thought he was going to be a hero. The people that knew well said Jack thought he was going to be a big hero for what he did. Several members of the jury convicted him told the media, well; he thought he can become a hero. We know that from his jail cell he started sending out messages right after the killing. He thought there was an agent who would represent him, there would be a big book and a movie about him based on his heroic deeds. His first lawyer said you know Jack didn't even think he was going to be punished for this. He will just get a slap on the wrist. He thought at no time at all he will be back at his beloved Carousel Club and shaking hands with people from all over the world who wanted to shake the hand of the guy who killed the man who killed the President. And I really think that a combination of those two factors, his love for the President and his thinking that he was going to become a hero were the two main reasons that Jack Ruby did what he did. What was wrong with i? I guess the very question would be what was right with it and he did have three things as right I got to hand it to Oliver here, he had three things right, he had the date of the assassination correct November 22nd 1963, he had the victim John F Kennedy and he had the location Dallas, he had those three things right. And those three things he had those three things right and I have to acknowledge that and give him credit for that. Beyond that Oliver Stone's movie JFK is one continuous lie. Now if there is one thing about me I take pride in, I never ever, ever make a charge without supporting it, you might not agree with me but I never make a charge without offering a lot of support. And I am telling you what I think about Oliver Stone's movie here and I offer a lot of support in the book, page after page after page. I say what Oliver Stone said and then I prove that it's a flat out lie or distortion, perhaps the best way of illustrating how bad that movie was. In Reclaiming History, I set forth 53 separate pieces of evidence, all of which point towards Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. And in Stone's movie, three hours and eight minutes, Oliver just couldn't find the time there wasn't enough time to mention even one of those 53 pieces of evidence. The closest he comes, he mentions that the murder weapon is in the name of Oswald's alias. Okay, that will be fine at that point. But then he proceeds to tell us audience that others ordered the weapon and put it under the name of Oswald's alias to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, not one piece of evidence pointing towards Oswald's guilt in three hours and eight minutes. So Stone got by with cinematic murder and it's my view for whatever it's worth, he is probably a nice fellow, I don't know Oliver, but it's my view that when he goes to Hollywood cocktail parties, when he is talking to people he is going to be wondering that they read Reclaiming History. Because his credibility has been completely destroyed, at least as far this case is concerned. You can't distort history and he has done that. It's okay to fictionalize history as long as you call it fiction. But Oliver hasn't done that, he wants people to believe that his movie is the truth. And he had the stratospheric arrogance to say it in an interview that he was hopeful that JFK, his movie would replace the Warren Report. Can you imagine that? With respect to the strange theories about the assassination, there are so many and I address them all in the in the book, cover all - cover them all. But if I were to pick out one - the one that takes the so called cake is David Lifton's book Best Evidence. David Lifton, a meticulous researcher, I am sure he is a nice fellow but he came up with this cockamamie theory well, the President's body is being flown on Air Force One from Dallas, Texas to the Nation's Capital. And the casket is in the back of the plane and who is sitting next to the casket - the whole trip Jacqueline, the President's wife and close members of JFK staff they are there the whole trip. And according to Lifton some conspirators, he doesn't say who they are, but some conspirators went back there, opened up the casket - I am not making this up, you can't make up stuff like this is too far out - open up the casket, removed Kennedy's body from the casket without anyone noticing and put the body in a baggage hold. Then when the plane arrives in Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington DC and everyone is deplaning from one side, on the opposite side these conspirators are removing Kennedy's body and there is a helicopter waiting there to take Kennedy's body to Walter Reed Hospital. Who is at Walter Reed hospital? A team of surgeons whose job it is to rearrange the bullet wounds, to make it look like the shots came from the rear where Oswald was and they claimed really the shots came from the grassy knoll, and then they got the body back to Bethesda got it back into the casket in time for the autopsy. Now I would think that insanity like that would be laughed at. Was it laughed at? No, it got good reviews, ended up number five in the New York Times best seller list. So David, you know, just took a solitary journey into dementia you know, and he is a bright fellow and I think he is honest, I think he is sincere but his theory is just preposterous. I dedicated this book to the historical record. Noting, and I am not the best of writers by the way, I am not a great writer but now and then I put my mind to it and I come up with something, that - that's fairly eloquent, I think I came up with something fairly good here. I noted that nothing in the present can exist without the paternity of history. And therefore the latter is sacred and should never be tampered with or defiled by the truths. Unfortunately in this case both sides in the debate, the conspiracy theorists - the anti conspiracy theorists, but mostly the conspiracy theorists have distorted the official record in this case. No question about it. Both sides have. So in my book Reclaiming History, I am reclaiming the history - reclaiming the truth of the assassination. And in the book I set forth the chapter and verse, example after example, were both sides, particularly the conspiracy theorists, when they see something which is contrary to position that they are taking they usually do one of two things. They either ignore it or they work, distort, twist it. I don't do that, that's not my style. My orientation is as a trial lawyer, in front of a jury, and as a true crime author, and credibility means everything. For instance if you are a trial lawyer and you lose credibility with the jury, I mean you just about lost the case. So I am sure that the assassination researchers and conspiracy theorists, they are going to able to say, oh Mr. Bugliosi didn't quote this particular document. This document I haven't seen, there is millions of documents, so it would take a couple of lifetime to read all of them. Okay, but what they are not going to able to say, they are not going to be able to say oh he he wrote he included this paragraph in this letter but he conveniently neglected to put in the second paragraph which completely changes the meaning of the first paragraph. They are not going to be able to do that because I don't do that. That's not my style. So they are going to have a tough time with me. There was another anti conspiracy book that came out, with that they savaged successfully because there was some problems of credibility. I don't have those problems because my whole orientation is credibility. But I am sure they are going to find documents that I haven't seen and they are going to say I kept them out but it was not intentional. If there is any weakness in a position that I am taking or there is any argument, I state it and then I knock it down. But I don't ignore it and I don't distort. You lose credibility when you lose credibility its end of the ball game. Well, the thing that drove me to spent so much time on this case 20 years, you have to realize, the Kennedy assassination is the most important murder case, the most consequential murder case in American history, arguably altered the course of world history, and I think the assassination is a significantly important event, its sufficiently important to warrant that there be a book for the ages about it. And Reclaiming History is that book. I mean when I started writing that book it was to write a book for the ages about the Kennedy assassination. And that's precisely what it is. I don't care if its 100 years from now or 500 years from now, if people are still interested in the case, if they are not they are not going to be interested but if they are interested, this is the book that they are going to have to read. It's a book for the ages and the case was sufficiently important to warrant that type of effort on my part. Well, my background as a criminal prosecutor and basically as the publishers said this is the most important murder case in American history and they say that Bugliosi is nation's foremost prosecutor; I am not saying that, other people have said it, and I am taking on the most important murder case in American history. So I looked upon this case as I would if I were prosecuting the case, I would have to prove that Oswald is guilty and there was no conspiracy. And I did do that by the way, in 1986. I prosecuted Oswald in London, not a real trial, it was called the Docu-trial, 21 hours, the great criminal defense attorney whom I referred to as this nation's Clarence Darrow, I am talking about Jury Spence, defended Oswald, we worked on it for almost half a year, we had the original Warren Commission witnesses, a real judge, a real jury, no script and we went out for 21 hours in London and the jury came back with the verdict of guilty. So what is it about me? Well, just looking at all the evidence, in organizing, in analyzing it in such a way that I make the the conclusion of Oswald's guilt and the absence of conspiracy irresistible. So I do have a background in marshalling the evidence and analyzing things and organizing it. How do I rate Reclaiming History, in terms of my other work in my career, its the biggest project that I have ever worked on, I mean 20 years. In terms of books, I think I can say it's my Magnum Opus. It's the most important book that I have ever written. I can say that I put into Reclaiming History I put into this book the very best of what I have learned though out the years as a criminal prosecutor and a true crime author. I can't do any better than this book; it's just the best that I am capable of.