JOE ELLIOTT SAID:
David -- Superb collection of videos. I was most curious about: "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald". Very interesting. .... I am disappointed that [Vincent] Bugliosi did not point out that the Anti SBT diagram that Dr. [Cyril] Wecht was using was totally off. .... Wecht's diagram is even more inaccurate than the Costner diagram in the movie JFK. .... I wonder why there was no challenge? .... Questions for David: Have you ever discussed this issue with Bugliosi? Do you know why Bugliosi did not challenge the accuracy of that diagram?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I've wondered that same thing myself, Joe.
No, I've never discussed that particular issue with Vince Bugliosi (or through his secretary, Rosemary Newton, which is the only way I've ever "contacted" Vince).
But a possible (partial) reason for why Vince didn't challenge Wecht's skewed diagram [shown below] is because Wecht told the jury at the 1986 TV docu-trial that he was of the opinion (via his own personal "analysis") that at least one of the bullets that struck JFK from behind had originated from the WEST end of the Texas School Book Depository and from the second floor, instead of from Oswald's sixth-floor window on the east end of the TSBD building.
Dr. Wecht's make-believe west-end gunman is the thing that enables Wecht to pretend that the bullet that went through President Kennedy was able to miss Governor Connally completely.
And Cyril's "second floor" theory also enables the good doctor to pretend that the bullet was able to somehow miss the entire limousine after exiting JFK's throat as well (via the not-as-steep angle for the bullet that is provided by Wecht's make-believe "second floor" TSBD assassin).
But there's one part of Wecht's diagram that Bugliosi should have strongly objected to and should have verbally ripped to shreds....and that's the positioning of John Connally within that diagram.
Wecht does have Connally correctly sitting inboard of President Kennedy (which is unusual for a diagram/chart/sketch that's being propped up by a conspiracist), but that diagram doesn't show Governor Connally turned in his jump seat at all, which is definitely inaccurate and misleading, and is something that Bugliosi should have mentioned at the top of his lungs at the '86 TV trial. But he didn't (AFAIK).
Prosecutor Bugliosi should have probably produced a sketch of his own when cross-examining Dr. Wecht -- such as an accurate sketch like this one here (which appears in the photo section of Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book):
Another thing that Bugliosi should have nailed Wecht for at the '86 trial is when Wecht said that JFK's head was "driven backward and to the left with substantial force at the moment of impact with the head wound", which is a statement that everyone knows is 100% false. Kennedy's head isn't "driven backward and to the left" at the precise "moment of impact" at Z313 -- JFK's head, instead, moves FORWARD at the precise "moment of impact" between Zapruder Film frames 312 and 313 [as seen in the clip below].
.gif)
That very important point regarding JFK's initial forward head movement was established by Mr. Bugliosi earlier in the trial (during the testimony of Cecil Kirk), but when Dr. Wecht wanted to leave the incorrect impression in the minds of the jurors that Kennedy's head moved to the rear at the critical "moment of impact", Vince should have thrown the truth of the matter back into Cyril's face during VB's cross-examination of Wecht.
Related stuff:
Vincent Bugliosi debated Dr. Cyril Wecht on Pittsburgh radio station WPTT in June 2007, with the Single-Bullet Theory being the prime focus of that radio debate. And after I first listened to it, I was scratching my head and asking myself why in the world Bugliosi didn't bring up a couple of key points that would totally embarrass Dr. Wecht. These points:
1.) Why didn't Bugliosi bring up the fact that the bullets that were fired for the Warren Commission's tests at Edgewood Arsenal were NOT fired through TWO BODIES OR ANIMALS (to properly simulate the flight path of the SBT and the damage to Bullet CE399)? This was a rather large oversight on Bugliosi's part during the 2007 radio debate; and it was also a large oversight on Vincent's part during the 1986 mock trial as well.
It's possible, I suppose, that Vince did bring up this very important point when he cross-examined Dr. Wecht at the '86 trial in London and perhaps the editors of the TV trial snipped out that portion of Wecht's testimony due to time restrictions.
But in the 5-hour version of the docu-trial that aired in 1986, Bugliosi never once mentions the fact that the WC/Edgewood test bullets were fired directly into rib and wrist bones, which are tests that don't come close to replicating what CE399 is said to have done by the Warren Commission.
It should also be noted that the WC test bullet that was fired directly into a wrist bone (which is a bullet that Dr. Wecht loves to prop up so much) not only didn't have the benefit of initially travelling through any kind of a simulated "JFK neck", but that particular test bullet also didn't travel through a simulated "Connally chest" before reaching its "wrist" target either.
So, in the final analysis, the Edgewood Arsenal bullet tests are pretty much worthless for the anti-SBT purposes that Dr. Wecht loves to continually utilize them for.
2.) When the topic of "Has The SBT Ever Been Duplicated?" came up during the radio debate, Mr. Bugliosi should certainly have mentioned the Discovery Channel program that was made in 2004, "Beyond The Magic Bullet". And that's a program that had Vince HIMSELF making an appearance, too!
"Beyond The Magic Bullet" did, indeed, properly simulate the SBT by firing a Carcano bullet like Oswald's through TWO surrogate bodies, with the results being very similar in character to the Single-Bullet Theory, including the test bullet emerging in a totally unfragmented condition. Here's the Discovery Channel test bullet:
I don't know why Mr. Bugliosi didn't mention those two important issues during the 2007 radio debate after Dr. Wecht started talking about how the WC test bullets were "mushroomed" and more flattened, etc.
But, IMO, Vince should have talked about those things I mentioned, in order to significantly deflate Wecht's anti-SBT arguments.
JOE ELLIOTT SAID:
Clay Shaw Diagram Questions: I also want to know about the Clay Shaw trial. In the real trial of Clay Shaw, did Garrison's team try to pull a fast one with a diagram like that? Do we have a picture of such a diagram that would have been used in that trial. Do we know what challenge was made to such a diagram, if such a diagram was used? Thanks David.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm not entirely sure, Joe. I'll defer those inquiries to resident Garrison expert Dave Reitzes. I'll bet he knows. In fact, the answers are probably located somewhere within Mr. Reitzes' excellent website.
David Von Pein
April 26, 2009
