 |
.American
Free Press |
| |
.Vol
VII .#23 June 4, 2007 americanfreepress.net |
| |
Page 20, AMERICAN
FREE PRESS * June 4, 2007 Behind the Scenes with Michael Collins Piper
Oswald Did It Alone,
Says Prosecutor
Highly detailed JFK book won't mention
Mossad link to Kennedy assassination
By Michael Collins Piper
 |
.Although former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi’s new book on the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History, is a grand total of 2,740 pages—1,612 pages in book form, supplemented with an enclosed compact disc containing 958 pages of endnotes (detailed ones at that) and 170 pages of source notes—Bugliosi never once makes the slightest attempt to refute my allegation of Mossad involvement in the JFK assassination, a thesis that now rings true with many who had been researching the JFK assassination for decades.
In case you hadn’t heard all the buzz in the media, Bugliosi has declared all JFK assassination conspiracies to be out of bounds. Lee Harvey Oswald, he says, was a lone nut assassin. But while Bugliosi’s book has some value, in that he demonstrates how rumors, misstatements, misunderstandings and misinformation have done a lot to muddy the waters of JFK research— all of which plays into the hands of those like Bugliosi who want to perpetuate the lone nut assassin myth—his book is a masterpiece in obfuscation in many ways, but particularly in the way he deals (or rather, does not deal) with the thesis of Final Judgment.
Bugliosi spends a lot of time addressing a variety of patently false (and often bizarre) tales relating to the JFK assassination—stories which no serious people believe and which Bugliosi repeatedly says do not even deserve being mentioned at all, a point that doesn’t stop him from sometimes spending several pages repudiating such easily refutable allegations.
However, Bugliosi has gone to such prevaricating lengths to ignore my thesis (or distort it) that one might get the idea that he simply doesn’t want people to ever consider the possibility that Israel may have even had a motive to work to remove John F. Kennedy from the presidency.
So, in the end, the undeniable fact that Bugliosi totally refuses to address what Final Judgment does say is very telling indeed.
Despite being a clever lawyer, skilled in courtroom legerdemain, and having spent years crafting his writing skills, Bugliosi’s rather transparent scheme in Reclaiming History (at least as far as my work is concerned) was to make passing reference to Final Judgment (and he even quotes from it) simply so that he can say, when questioned, “I didn’t ignore Piper’s book. I mentioned it in mine.”
Bugliosi—who received a copy of my book from me years ago—mentions my name and/or Final Judgment three times. But a careful review of Bugliosi’s references is revealing indeed, for it demonstrates that Bugliosi is pulling a fast one on his readers.
In one instance, Bugliosi quotes a line from Final Judgment critical of another JFK writer (whom Bugliosi is also critiquing). However, the line in question had nothing to do with my thesis; rather, it dealt with a tertiary matter and gave no hint as to what Final Judgment does say, in substance, about who killed JFK and why.
In short, Bugliosi actually used my research to discredit another writer who, in fact, deserved to be discredited. But Bugliosi was careful not to mention that my book (which he was citing) was devoted to the notion that Israel’s intelligence service played a role in the JFK assassination because of JFK’s opposition to Israel’s determined drive to build nuclear weapons of mass destruction, a cornerstone of Israel’s national security policy going back to that nation’s founding in 1948.
The second reference to Final Judgment (although not by name) appears in an appendix in Bugliosi’s book where—in a long list of what Bugliosi calls “groups and countries” that have been accused of involvement in the JFK assassination—Bugliosi refers to “Mossad (Israeli intelligence agency)” and provides a footnote. Perhaps we should give him credit for that much.
However, to access the source of the footnote, to learn precisely who (or what book, in this case, Final Judgment) makes the allegation of Mossad involvement, a reader must take out the enclosed compact disc (sealed in a plastic envelope on the inside back cover of the book), put it in a computer and turn to the footnotes where the name of the book and the author are listed.
To drive home the point that, in his view, the idea of Mossad involvement is really far out, Bugliosi notes that “sources for the accusation are given only for the most obscure and far-out groups” and, in fact, there are only 15 source notes (including the one for Final Judgment) in that section which lists 44 different groups.
Although countries such as “Poland” and “Germany” are listed among the suspects, along with the “Illuminati” and the “Ku Klux Klan,” Bugliosi did not feel it necessary to footnote the sources for the claims that these groups or countries were involved since, in Bugliosi’s apparent judgment, those suspects—even including the Illuminati—are apparently not quite as “far out” as the idea that Israel would have wanted to participate in the JFK assassination in order to ensure the survival of its nuclear weapons program.
The third reference to my name is not even a reference to Final Judgment at all. Nor, again, of course, is it even a reference to the foundation of my thesis. Instead, in an endnote, buried in the aforementioned CD—not even in the text of the published book itself— Bugliosi uses a classic maneuver of the most deceptive type to ignore my allegations of Mossad involvement.
In addressing allegations that New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw—prosecuted by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for involvement in the JFK conspiracy— had ties to the CIA, Bugliosi describes the controversy surrounding Shaw’s involvement in a mysterious holding company known as Permindex.
For years—prior to the release of Final Judgment— many JFK researchers believed that Permindex was a CIA front and pointed toward this as one of Shaw’s CIA connections. Bugliosi seeks to dismiss the idea that Permindex was a CIA front and implicitly suggests that I also viewed Permindex as such. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In Final Judgment I make it abundantly clear that— as I have said time and again, in writing, on the radio— that “Permindex was more Mossad than CIA” and that the Shaw-Permindex link was a definitive Israeli connection to the JFK assassination. There’s an entire chapter in Final Judgment exploring this in detail.
So rather than citing what I do address in Final Judgment, Bugliosi bamboozles his readers and points to an article published in the old Spotlight newspaper in which I made a passing reference to Permindex and claims that I offer “no shred of evidence” that a number of other CIA intriguers linked to the JFK conspiracy and to Shaw had any connection to Permindex.
In fact, The Spotlight article in question was actually only a transcription of a radio interview with me— hardly as detailed as the material appearing in the pages of Final Judgment. And since Bugliosi had a copy of Final Judgment to refer to the detailed specifics, he knew full well that The Spotlight article hardly reflected my in-depth research on the topic.
And that move by Bugliosi was additionally deceptive because Bugliosi—as a writer with extensive experience in radio interviews—knows that a writer, in the course of a giving a radio interview about his work, cannot spend the same amount of time discussing a matter as he can do in his own book.
So, in this instance, Bugliosi pawned off on his readers the idea that I was suggesting that the aforementioned Permindex associates were simply “CIA” operatives. No, Permindex was a key Mossad link to the JFK conspiracy. But Bugliosi didn’t want even a whiff of that allegation to reach his readers.
Bugliosi spends a lot of his time denying that Lee Harvey Oswald was a “hit man for the CIA” or a “hit man for the Mafia” but no serious JFK researcher— even those who dispute my allegation of Mossad involvement—believe that Oswald was a “hit man” for anybody. They believe he was a patsy. So the very foundation of Bugliosi’s book—that Oswald was a lone nut assassin—fails from the get-go.
(Issue #23, June 4, 2007, AMERICAN
FREE PRESS)
|
