Although I haven’t read Vincent Bugliosi’s book, I would imagine it would replicate pretty much his trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in the late 1970s.
Therefore, it would be safe to assume that Bugliosi approached his book, Reclaiming History, entirely from a prosecutors angle, focusing mainly on the character of Oswald.
With all this in mind, Buglios can hardly have a fair assessment of Oswald, since he is somewhat arrogantly
assuming that if Oswald was on trial for the assassination of JFK, Bugliosi
could safely convict him. However, what Bugliosi overlooks is that Oswald has
absolutely no defence whatsoever. It matters not if someone on a par with
Bugliosi was to step up to the mark, since Oswald cannot present what he knew
and implicate anyone else. I would assume that it is for this reason why
neither Mark Lane or Jim Garrison would have taken up the task. Therefore, the very
fact that he was gunned down by Jack Ruby, this undoubtedly speaks for itself,
to prevent a trial.
Bugliosi also severely neglects all other potential suspects and the avalanche of motives that Kennedy’s
enemies had, not to mention the obvious that of all the people to hate the
Kennedy’s the most, it was right wingers in the southern states, who branded
him as a Communist, yet in the very heart of right wing extremism in the south,
it is a left wing Communist who assassinates him.
If anyone hears of any critical responses to Bugliosi's book, I'd love know more please. In the meantime, if you're looking for more resources for the Truth Movement, you can visit my YouTube Channel at: http://www.youtube.com/user/IrishStorm1. I've also nearly completed my website, dedicated to fighting the Luciferian New World Order.