I hate it when a speaker or a somebody introduces someone they come up and say now for the person needs no introduction and they go on for 15 minutes cutting into the speaker's time. You are here today, to hear Vincent Bugliosi. So I will turn the mic over to Mr. Bugliosi. Thank you very much. Thank you very much ladies and gentleman. And I want to thank Keith for pronouncing my name reasonably well. I was in Atlanta not too long ago when a woman came up to me and said are you Mr. Bello Lugosi I said unbelievable. I want to say certainly I am very honored that you invited me to be your guest speaker here today at this meeting of the Dallas Bar Association. It's always an honor to speak one's peers in this case, fellow lawyers. I am really getting really old. You know, when people come up to me and say you know, I used to be a judge I say for how long for 25 years or something and they looked like they are so young to me in their former judges. So I must look like I am 200 because a a former judge to me is that a judge for 20 years and - I mean I expect grey hair and kind of balding and overly weight and they look like kids to me. A woman came up to me recently and said Mr. Bugliosi you look good. I said yeah - I said I don't look at day over 90. And she says you don't and I don't know but I mean its just I want to I want you to give you a hand to someone here whom I respect very deeply and he helped me a lot on the book he is the guy that he was a lead prosecutor. Not name and namely prosecutor was Wade and Wade and he participated in the in the prosecution of Ruby. But the lead guy the lead prosecutor was the - Alexander and he is here today and he helped me in this book. I I asked him questions all the time. He was always always made time for me. And he is here today. He is a legendary figure one of the great prosecutors in Texas history. Bill where ever you are you stand up and let's give him big hand. I think he is here. Yeah Bill. Bill was going to prosecute Oswald and and would have prosecuted Oswald and send him to Huntsville but I guess Jack Ruby intervened. I first got involved - by the way, if if there is one thing that people say about me I am always prepared but I am not that prepared today. I mean I wrote a million and a half words but I haven't really prepared a formal speech on this case. But I do have some notes in front of me and I I think I will do okay. I first got involved in the Kennedy assassination way back in 1986 when London weekend television called me and said they wanted me to quote prosecute Oswald in a trial in London and my responses - I had been asked to participate before an artificial court room setting and I only said no and I said I am I am honored that you asked me to do that I said but I rather not. They said wait a while wait a while now this is totally different many thing that is ever been done before. And I said what what do you mean? They said well, we have got the original Warren Commission witnesses. Number two, we know about your love affair with your yellow pad I wrote Reclaiming History with a yellow pad. I don't have a computer or cell phone or anything. And the yellow pad is going to be your script. And that was very impressive to me that it was going to be script less. No - no script except working on my yellow pad. And they said Gerry Spence you know, Gerry the cowboy lawyer from Wyoming. When I say cowboy, by the way, I am not speaking in denegration of Gerry. Gerry is a great, great lawyer but Gerry thinks he is a cowboy. I mean he comes into court, you know, with the stetson hat and cowboy boots. So that's not in denegration because he is a great, great lawyer. But anyway this expense will be defending Oswald you will be prosecuting if you are willing to do it. You are going to have regular federal judge from midland or regular federal jury from chosen from the jury rules of the Dallas Federal district court here in Dallas will be the the jury and will be in trial for 28 hours. As it turned out was 21 hours. But they said 28 hours and they said you going to have close to a half year to work on it. And Gerry Spence will tell you that he and I worked on this like we would have worked on any other murder case in our career and the Time Magazine ended up saying it was the closest to real trial that the accuse assassin of President Kennedy whatever have. So that's how I got involved in this case years and years ago and it was during my preparation for the trial that I discovered a couple of things. One I discovered that although the conspiracy theorists were claiming that the Warren Commission had suppressed the truth distorted the evidence in the case I found out that it was they who were guilty of these precise things. The second thing I discovered was that there was just no substance at all to these conspiracy charges and it was just sublime silliness pure moonshine and it was at that point that I decided that I probably should write a book because I knew that the majority of Americans believed all of this nonsense. So I started in 1986 and finally got the book out what is this 2007 I guess. Literally I have been working sometimes I don't know what month it is. I have actually asked my wife at times what year is this, you know. So we are in 2007 but it was at that point that I decided to do a book on the case. It's difficult for me to speak candidly about reclaiming history without sounding a immodest although Churchill showed us that modesty was not always a virtue. He was running for reelection against Clement Atley and I guess a reporter came up to him and said, Sir Winston I think you have to agree that Mr. Atley is lot more modest than you are. Whereupon he said, "Yes, but Mr. Atley is much more to be modest about." In any event it's difficult for me to speak candidly about this book without being without sounding boastful and I had three other books. Number one, New York Times and I never boasted about them but the problem here is that the alternative is even worse. Because if I don't speak candidly then the the belief could be, well this is just another book on the assassinations I know 1000 of them. But this isn't just another book on the assassination. I was going to sound like I am bossy but its not. As the LA Times says and I'm quoting them "At least someone has done it put all the pieces together, reclaiming history as a book for the ages." The Wall Street Journal said that, "Reclaiming history was unlike any - not just in weight - unlike any other book ever written on the assassination" - very, very briefly. Reclaiming History is the first book on the assassination to cover the entire case. No other authors ever attempt to do so. I get into things that aren't even in the Warren Report or the House Select Committee Report. Secondly, it is always been the conventional wisdom even by people like myself who believe that Oswald will act alone even by those people from the conventional wisdom virtually by everyone that there would be never be a satisfactory resolution to this case. Because there would always be some doubt but in all candor again I I'm sorry that I'm sounding boastful but on all candor I believe that reclaiming history lays all of those questions to rest. I think it settles all questions about the assassination once and for all. Just a quote from LA Times with Reclaiming History from this point forward no reasonable person can argue that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent no sane person can take seriously assertions that Kennedy was killed by the CIA, Castro, the mob, the soviets, Texas oil men or its Vice President Lyndon Johnson. Each may be guilty of crimes, but none had anything to do with Kennedy's assassination. Reclaiming History may finally move those acquisitions beyond civilized debate. Finally I am just giving you the main reasons how where this book differs I think from other books. I think there are there are many ways but this is this will be the third way. This is the first book believe it or not to take on all of these many, many conspiracy theorists and destroy their theories. There has been no other book that is attempted to do that. My editor in New York, Starling Lawrence said that it took a book of this magnitude to finally put a stake into the heart of the conspiracy movement in this country. Reclaiming History is a million and a half words. The if we assume that the average book has 400 pages and the average number of pages per book or per you know, the no, the average number of words per page I'm getting old, slope of the words, I am sorry, the average number of words per page 300 we make those two assumptions Reclaiming History history translates to about 13 volumes. These 13 volumes have been shoehorned into one book of about 1600 pages, that it's higher and wider smaller font and then there is a CD at the end of end notes of another 1125 pages. My editor told me about his nightmare envisions an older women or I guess any women fall into sleep at night reading the book with the book on her chest and she doesn't wake up in the morning. Cindy Adams, I don't know if you heard of her. She is a a columnist I think the New York Post, she said you start reading Reclaiming History in junior high and you will finish as a senior citizen, and she said this is not a book you put on a coffee table, this is the coffee table. Why is this book so long? Well number one is the first book on the case that covered covers the entire case, that's one reason, but that's not the main reason why this book is so long. The main reason this book is so long is because of two realities, one reality is that at its core at its core this is a very simple case, and within hours of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, I am sorry, within - it's not because of that, it's just that when I see movements. Within hours of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, virtually everyone in Dallas Law Enforcement, I am referring to the Dallas Police Department, Sheriffs Office, local offices of the FBI, Bill Alexander, they knew that Oswald had killed Kennedy and was very obvious when they learn what a crook he was that no one conspired with him. So at its core this is a very simple case, Chief Justice Earl Warren said, he is a former DA of Oakland this would've been a two or three day murder case he said in Oakland. Very simple case and Dallas Law Enforcement knew it and did terrific job by the way, and I gave them credit in the book. Within a within an hour, certainly within 24 hours they knew that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted along that's one reality, but there is another reality here and that reality is this because of the unceasing and obsessive tenacity, fanatical obsession of literally and I am not exaggerating here literally thousands upon thousands of the Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists who have investigated every single conceivable aspect of this case but close to 44 years had made hundreds upon hundreds of allegations, this simple case which remains simple at its core this is not a difficult case has been transformed into its present state, what's its present state, I will tell you what its present state is it s now the most complex murder case by far in world history, nothing even remotely comes close to the Kennedy assassination. Just to give you an example. In manuscript form one of my and end notes, I'm not talking about the main text now, talking about the end notes one of my end notes on accoustics runs to about an 120 pages with about 60 footnotes. So that's what this case is been transformed into an extremely complex case. Today as you probably know 75 percent of the American public believe that there is a conspiracy, only 19 percent accept the findings of the Warren Commission. Why? Well through their books, radio and TV talk shows and college lectures, movies like Oliver Stone's movie. Oliver is not going to like me when he finds about the book but he already knows it but when he when he reads it he is not going to like me. Through all of these things the shrill voice of the conspiracy theorists finally penetrated the consciousness of the American people and they succeeded and totally discrediting the Warren commission and convincing the vast majority of Americans that Oswald was either a member of a high-level conspiracy or just some pansy who was framed by some exotic and elaborate group of conspirators ranging from [00:13:05] ____ Cuban exiles to organize crime work in a league with US Intelligence. I was speaking to lawyers' right after the ridiculous stone movie. Stone's movie is one continuous lie, okay. I should amend that. He had the date right, he had the victim right and he had the location but other than that one continuous lie. Anyway I was speaking on a - I gave a speech called tactics and techniques in the trial of a criminal case and I was speaking to about about 600 trial lawyers on east coast here, and during the Q&A period that followed, we got into the Kennedy case and I could tell by rhetorical nature of the questions - that the question I thought there was a conspiracy in the case. So I just asked for a show of hands. I like to have show of hands I said as to how many believe there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy case just a forest of hands, you know, I couldn't tell what the percentage was, but 90 percent. And I said what if I could convince you in less than a minute that you people are not thinking very cleverly about this case, even though you are intelligent people you are not thinking very cleverly and there was you could tell there was just a murmuring out there and finally someone shouted out, "We don't think you can do it." I said, "All right, pick up your watch. I am going to convince you less than a minute that you are not thinking very cleverly about this case." How am I going to do it? Why? My first question was, I like to have a show of hands again of all those you saw this fantasy movie JFK - Stone's movie or at anytime in the past read any book or article or column propounding the conspiracy theory or otherwise rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission. Again, tremendous number of hands looked like the same - same percentage. I said I don't have to ask for show of hands on my next point I said I think you all agree that to form an intelligent opinion by the manner matter in dispute should hear both sides of the story. By the old west Virginia mountaineer said no matter how thin I make my pancakes they always have two sides and I said with that in mind with that in mind I would like to have a show of hands of how many of you read the Warren Report and it was embarrassing it was embarrassing. A couple of people raised their hands, someone clocked at 47 seconds. I think I proved them 47 seconds that they formed an opinion rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission hadn't even bothered to read the Warren Report. If I could condense the billions upon billions of words that I have written about these case into a few minutes on the two main issues involved here, did Oswald kill Kennedy and was there a conspiracy? With respect to Oswald's guilt Bill Alexander will tell you I know there is a lot of other former prosecutors out there that I learnt as a prosecutor and its just commonsense that if you are innocent, chances are there is not going to be any evidence at all pointing towards to your guilt why because you are innocent but now and then because of the nature of life, the unaccountability of certain things there may be two things and in rare unusual situation may be even three pieces of evidence pointing towards your guilt even though you are innocent but in this case here, everything Oswald did - everything he said all the physical evidence, all the scientific evidence everything points towards Oswald's guilt. In Reclaiming History I said for 53 pieces of evidence that point irresistibly to Oswald's guilt and under those circumstances it would not be humanly possible let me say that again it would not be humanly possible for Oswald to be innocent with 53 pieces of evidence pointing towards his guilt, at least not in the world in which we live. You know, I am talking to you people you can hear me there is going to be a dawn tomorrow not that world, only in a fantasy world can you have 53 pieces of evidence pointing towards guilt and still be innocent. I will just give you five and many of these things I am mentioning you folks already know. Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon. I mean come on, that's pretty heavy evidence right there all by itself. The murder weapon belonged to Oswald. Number two he is the only guy the only person who fleeced the Book Depository Building after the shooting in Dealey Plaza he takes off. Number three, within 45 minutes he shoots and kills officer J. D. Tippit Dallas Police Department. I told the jury in London that the murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some awful deed, 30 minutes later at the Texas theatre he resists arrest, pulls a gun on the arresting officer and during his interrogation, he told one provable one provable lie after another all of which show a conscious of the guilt. He is pretty clever by the way. He said I never own a rifle in my life and they showed him a photograph holding a Carcano and very quickly he said well, it's my head superimposing someone else's body. When someone tells me that Oswald is innocent I know one of two things either this person is completely unaware of the evidence or he is just some silly person. Now with respect to conspiracy no credible evidence that's why I italicize the word credible - no credible evidence has ever surfaced showing that CIA or the mob or the military industrial complex was behind this assassination. All we have is a naked speculation. I told the Jury in London. I said I will stipulate to you folks that three people can keep a secret I said, but only if two are dead, and I said here not one word not one syllable has leaked out, not one credible - I am not talking about some guy this is my father committed the assassination and the father turns out to be imprisoned at the time I am not talking about that I am talking about credible evidence that one credible piece of evidence has leaked out and close to 44 years that any of these groups were behind the assassination. Number two there is no evidence that Oswald was ever associated or had any connection with any of these groups believe to be behind the assassination and believe me the FBI one of the leading conspiracy theorist Harold Weisberg, he is dead now, he said - he admitted that the FBI checked every breath this guy breathe from the moment he arrived back from the Soviet Union, to the United States, it was June 30, 1962 to the day of the assassination, 25,000 interviewers. They found no evidence whatsoever connecting Oswald with any of these groups believed to be behind the assassination. Number three, if one of these groups decided to kill the president and I reject that out of hand that's just belong in an elaborate ludlim novel I don't reject - I don't have a luxury rejecting in the book I have whole chapters on it but I am telling you I rejected out of hand that the joint chiefs of staff are sitting around you know with the heads of major corporations in American and decided to kill the president, or the CIA decided to kill the president, but let's assume for the sake of argument. They decided to kill the president. Oswald would be one of the last people in the face of this earth when they would turn to, why? Well, number one he was not an expert shot, he was a good shot but he was not an expert shot, number two he had a $12 mail order rifle - come on. Number three notoriously unreliable, number four extremely unstable - I mean here is a guy that defects to the Soviet Union pre Gorbechov I mean even today who in the world defects to the Soviet Union and he goes over there he wants to become a Soviet citizen, they they turn him down what does he do he tries to kill himself, he slashes his wrist. I mean just a type of guy that the CIA or the mob would rely on to commit to commit the biggest murder in American History. Taking it at a step further - step further. Let's assume that one of these groups decides to kill Kennedy and for whatever crazy bizarre reason they decide that they want Oswald to do it and he agrees to do it. If that had happened let's see if where that takes us makes any sense. Once Oswald left the Book Depository Building, one of the two things would have happened. Let me tell you the least likely thing first. The least likely thing that would have happened there would have been a car waiting for him. I am talking about the CIA or mob is behind the assassination. There would have been a car waiting for him to help him escape, down to Mexico or wherever, that's the least likely scenario. The most likely scenario by far and I don't have to tell you, you know what I am going to say. If the mob or the CIA was behind the assassination there would have be a car waiting for Oswald, driving him to his death, I mean you know that would have happened - you know, that what would have happened and yet he is out on the street with $13 in his pockets trying to flag down buses and cabs. No sensible person under those circumstances can possibly believe that there was any conspiracy in the assassination. In fact the the route that took the president's Limousine right below Oswald's window, wasn't determined until November 18th, 1963, four days before the assassination and it wasn't under Dallas Morning News the route until the following day November 19th. Does any rational person believe that the CIA would conspire with Oswald to kill the President three or four days before the President comes to Dallas that that's just crazy talk. No one has ever accused me of being short-winded but I want to just talk - to talk about two more issues then we will open this up to questions and answers. In London - perhaps the main issue in London was the so called head snapped at the rear you heard about that the head snapped at the rear? Spence showed the Dallas jury in London that segment is film where you see that the president's head going backwards. He showed it five times and I didn't object. He said look like Babe Ruth had struck the President I guess he was left-handed, struck the president in front of the head and he said, you know, Mr. Bugliosi, you will see here is trying to convince you folks that what you saw with your own eyes never even happened and his guy claims that Oswald is guilty. He says he was to the rear he is putting on evidence for the defense because we see we see that the head shot, the head snapped to the rear and I am telling the jury that Oswald was to the president's rear. Now if I haven't able to answer that almost assuredly the verdict in London would have been not guilty because I would have raised a reasonable doubt but here is the answer and I am sure many of you already know it. If you look at the individual frames of this recruited film you cannot see - if you look at the film you have to look at the individual frames and I show them in the book very clearly. At frame 312 the president's head is okay, at frame 313 one eighteenth of a second later - this 18.3 frames per second on this repruter film we see the President hit in the head, there was this explosion to his head and in what direction is the President's head pushed at frame 313? Not to the rear but forward indicating a shot from the rear. 2.3 inches how do I say that? Don't get old any of you. 2.3 inches forward indicating a shot from the rear so at this all important moment of impact which you can see on the film the President's head is pushed forward not backwards which would - backwards would indicate a shot from the grassy knoll push forward and then at frames 314 to 321 the head snapped to the rear of about eight inches caused by a neuromuscular reaction the way the doctors described at the nerve damage to the president's brain caused by the bullet causes back muscles to tighten which in turn cause the head to snap to the rear and if - and I showed the jury in London those frames and there was no way that Spence could get around that. You can argue the film all you want but these are the frames showing that the head was pushed forward, in fact I also showed the jury in London a high contrast photo of frame 313 showing this terrible spray of blood and tissue and its all to the front indicating again a shot from the rear - magic bullet. These conspiracy theorist are so bold and audacious that not only do they lie about things where there is documentary evidence refuting what they are saying, even when there is photographic evidence in film they lie why, because they know that may be only one out of a 100 people has access to the film or what have you. Here is what these people do in their sketches. They place Governor Conley directly in front of President Kennedy in the Presidential Limousine, that's in their sketches and I have the sketches in book and they say a shot coming from the right rear passing through soft tissue on a straight line, once it exits president's throat, according to conspiracy theorist, they say, would have to make a right turn in mid air and then a left turn to hit Governor Conley. Well, of course if you start out with an erroneous premise, everything that follows makes a heck of a lot of sense. The only problem is that is wrong. And Conley was not seated directly in front of the president and the conspiracy theorist have to know that you can tell from the film and many, many photographs, he was seated to the president's left front in a jump seat, six inches in. So the orientation of Conley's body vis-à-vis Kennedy's was such that once that bullet exit through the front of the president's throat it had nowhere else to go except to hit Governor Conley. Now in London, Spence called Dr. Cyril Wecht, I don't know if any of you folks know he is, but he at the time was the Coroner of Elegany County in Pittsburg. So he calls him to the stand and then he says, "Dr. Wecht, could you characterize this bullet?" He said, "Well, it was a magic bullet and and what happened, a right turn - left turn." That type of stuff doesn't even happen in cartoons. So in cross examination, I said, "Now, Dr. Wecht" I said, "You concede" - I said, "If you concede that the board is traveling on a straight line and through President Kennedy's body - soft tissue, you concede that if it did not go on to hit Governor Conley as you claim it did not" I said, "How come it didn't tear up the interior of the limousine or hit the driver?" He said, "I don't know, I didn't conduct the investigation." So I said, "Well, you know doctor, sounds like you've got your own magic bullet." I said, "If it didn't hit Conley, didn't hit the interior of the limousine, didn't hit the driver of the car," I said, "It must have zigzagged to the left." And he says, "No, it need not have zigzagged to the left." I said, "Whether it hop skip and jump over the car?" He said, "No, it did not have to perform any remarkable feet". So I said, "Then what happened to that bullet, doctor?" He says, "I don't know." So who has got the magic bullet here? If we are to believe these conspiracy theorist, once that bullet exits to the president's throat, apparently it vanished into thin air without a trace and yet, the conspiracy theorist have taken this magic bullet appellation and wrapped it around the head of the Warren Commission for close to 44 years. There is only one group that has a magic bullet here and that is the conspiracy theorist because to believe them this bullet just totally vanished into thin air. After - over 40 years of the most prodigiously intensive investigation and examination of the murder case in the world history, certain powerful facts exist which cannot be challenged. Number one, not one weapon other than Oswald's Carcano weapon has ever been found in link to the assassination. Not one bullet other than the three fired from Oswald's rifle was ever been found and linked the assassination. No person, other than Oswald and they've been searching for 44 years, and they come up empty-handed. Not one person other than Oswald has ever had any credible evidence connecting them to the assassination. No evidence is ever surfaced linking Oswald in anyway as I've indicated to any of these groups believed to have been behind the assassination. And no evidence is ever been found showing that any person or group murdered Kennedy and framed Oswald for the murder that they committed. Now one would think that faced with these stubborn and immutable realities the conspiracy theorist unable to pay the piper would folder their tent and go home. But instead undaunted and unfazed, they continued to disgorge even more of what they've given us over the last 44 years more wild theorizing and also a deliberate distortion of the official record in this case. Let's open this up for questions and answers and I'll try to answer any question that you might have about Ruby or what you have there. The guy that knows about Ruby probably should ask about Bill Alexander. Yeah.
