Oswald did in fact do it - based on the mountain of hard and circumstantial evidence. Bugliosi did us (those who read widely) all a favor. Thanks Vince. RIP.

In 2008 I almost didn't buy this book because I just knew there had to be a conspiracy - MUST be a conspiracy, because how could a man as great as JFK be taken out by this little nobody Oswald?!? I'm glad I decided to give it a chance, and weeks later by the time I'd finished it, I'd seen the light. Occam's Razor.

As someone who was a conspiracy believer for a very long time the biggest shock for me wasn't the day I concluded Oswald killed JFK and Officer Tippit, but right after when I realized that the Warren Commission had been almost completely accurate after all.

There needs to be a major motion picture or better yet, a big budget 5 part mini series based on Bugliosi's and Posner's books. The fantasy had it's day, it's time the truth got the same.

If you need more convincing that Oswald killed JFK and acted alone, read the book _Case Closed_ by Gerald Posner.

I read this book years ago. It opened my eyes about the JFK assassination. I had never been a hardcore conspiracy believer. I had however doubted the official story. After reading “Reclaiming History” it cleared up the many falsehoods put out to support the conspiracy theories. Vincent Bugliosi went into great detail tearing down these so-called theories.Also the biography of Oswald let you see what led him to this mad action. The analysis of Jack Ruby’s mindset and motivations demonstrated why he killed Lee Harvey Oswald. Many peoples find it hard to believe that an iconic figure such as John F. Kennedy could be murdered by such a sick and deluded little man. Instead they want a large and grandiose narrative to fit someone of JFK’s stature. But in the real world tragedies such as this are rarely the result of grand schemes, but the mundane motives of small twisted individuals.

Most people are lazy and undereducated. There's your answer on why so many fall for these conspiracy theories. If you really do your homework, you realize that Oswald did it all by his lonesome.

Bugliosi eviscerates all the conspiracy theorists here and in his book.

Great book. Overwhelming evidence for no conspiracy.

You didn't need to wait until the Warren Commission. The Dallas Police Department proved Oswald's guilt within hours of his arrest. If you are driven to work with a package the size of a rifle & tell you're co-worker they are curtain rods & when the police later ask you about your curtain rod alibi, you don' deny bringing curtain rods to work. You say, "Yes, this is perfect proof that I'm innocent, I left the package in my locker. You'll see it wasn't a rifle." LHO lied about everything.

Vincent was a class act and a tremendously intelligent man! His book Reclaiming History was a masterpiece and if anyone who reads it cannot believe in a conspiracy. To do otherwise is to also believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy!

I read the book and it is amazing.

He is right oliver stone is wrong.

A “patsy” to what? The fact that Oswald even uttered those words shows his guilt, the fact that he was around no one else that could prove his innocence and he knew it. By the time he was arrested how would he have known he could even be logically connected to the assassination unless he did it. He knew, we know.

Excellent refutation! I see you are thoroughly familiar with the facts. -- When I first started coming to the conclusion LHO was the lone assassin the bits of evidence that at first really opened my eyes were the incredible amount of lies told by LHO to the DPD. Any "patsy" would have been trying to save himself not digging himself further into a hole. His statements concerning the rifle/curtain rods were the clincher for me. His guilt was an established fact within hours of his arrest.

Perhaps if you read the book you would come to understand that Vince points out that the curb showed no traces of copper, only lead, therefore, that a bullet fragment more than likely caused the bullet mark on the curb.

If LHO shot down Houston St the cops would have been able to recognize that the shot came from TSBD. It would also have been a *much* more difficult shot since the shooter would have to have kept aiming the rifle down as the limousine came closer to the TSBD. The 1st shot was at Z-152/53, just when the car turned the corner right underneath LHO's location. He missed because it was the most difficult shot. The 2 later shots were much easier because he didn't have to move the rifle much to re-aim.

Thanks for posting this.

Your profound knowledge of the evidentiary evidence is astounding! I truly bow before you and your profound knowledge of the facts of the case. From your carefully crafted counterargument I truly see the error of my ways and am convinced you are not at all a nut with no leg to stand on.

Oswald did the deed, the claims of conspiracy are a piggin joke.

Excellent book !! Incredibly comprehensive and detailed…

Just borrowed the book from library. It's interesting but also is hard to handle -literally- coz it is HUGE!!

Was there today. “Lee, where are those curtain rods you brought in? My wife would like to see them. Go get them.”

What i don't get is even if you believe there was more than one shooter how does that prove Oswald's innocence? Thats how conspiracys work. Pick holes in the official story then make up a alternative theory based no evidence.

Happy Birthday to Mr Bugliosi!

You missed Larry Sturdivan, who is probably my favorite of all the writers on the conspiracy issue. Ultimately, Bugliosi's great book is the closest thing to a definitive tome on the issue but he makes a few mistakes which I think Sturdivan gets right. In his defense, Sturdivan's book, "The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination," may have come out too late for Bugliosi to incorporate its findings into his own work. While S. also benefited from his science background.

He's right about the Warren Commission Report... its incredibly thorough and persuasive and actually easy to read

The truth hurts, undoubtedly. I think Larry Sturdivan's "The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination" is an even stronger refutation of the conspiracy mythology.

Note: For some reason I am unable to fathom this video cuts off the last 15 seconds of the interview. Bugliosi ends by saying: "The Los Angeles Times" said that this is a book for the ages and when I wrote the book that was my intent to write a book for the ages and the "Times" says "'Reclaiming History' may finally move those accusations of conspiracy beyond civilized debate. At last someone has done it - put all of the pieces together. It is a book for the ages."

You haven't read the book, have you?

Rgarding the Z film. Remember Super 8 are frames on the film. And the head shot happens so fast that the camera and film cant capture what you would have seen if you were there.

To each his own.

All the conspiracy theories are interesting, until one studies the biography of L.H.Oswald. A review of more recent history will produce another case of one unbalanced individual, trying to become a significant figure in changing history. John Hinckley

@12:14 "the head snap to the rear a neuro muscular reaction..." Perhaps, one other explanation as to why Kennedy's head snaps backward is simply that the limo driver floored the accelerator once he figured out what was going on. He had slowed down immediately after he heard the first shot (which had missed the limo and its occupants) and turned in his seat to see if Kennedy was alright. Then he heard the sound of the second bullet which pierced Kennedy neck and probably saw the result. The limo driver then quickly faced around and floored the accelerator. This sudden acceleration would explain the motion of Kennedy's head backward.

If it wasn't Oswald, then who?

oswald 100 percent guilty

Buy this book while you can still get it for a reasonable price. I see just two copies on eBay for under $20.

I have always liked and respected Mr Bugliosi. That said I have to agree with him about the JFK assassination. There are so many whacky theories out there, it boggles the mind and insults my intelligence. .aside from this nice share but the audio skips!! RIP

easier shot as limo was going AWAY from TSBD

I will admit one thing. You have done an excellent job of demonstrating the paranoiac and mentally ill nature of the conspiracy mindset. And the fact that you also have video of a white supremacist congressman on your channel also speaks wonders about your rationality. I'm placing a ban for this channel in the interesting of providing a place for rational discourse for anyone interested in doing so.

Mr. Bugliosi's and Posners' belief that Tague's wound was caused by the missed 1st shot is problematic. Bugliosi correctly states that the bullet was fired too early to have hit any foliage or sign-post which would have deflected the bullet but his alternative isn't very likely, either. It also ignores Tague's testimony that he thought he was hit by either the 2nd or 3rd bullet. It's much more likely Tague was injured by the 3rd shot - the head shot - as argued by Larry Sturdivan.

Having been to the Sixth Floor Museum, you can see for yourself just how close the School Book Depository is to Elm St. My questions would be why did he wait until the limo is moving away. The first shot missed, which should have been the easiest, and where did the first bullet go?

Would love to read this book. Was Oswald that good a shot though?

What happened to the first bullet and the third bullet? Were they found? Which bullet caused the curb to scratch the guy’s face? Where was he standing? The first shot would have been more or less straight down.

No I'm not. I came hear to listen to the radio broadcast of Vincent Bugliosi, saw your comments, and decided to comment.

You've been welcome to attempt to provide an argument here if you had one but you have repeatedly refused to do so in the apparent belief that typing "Whatever!" is an argument. I think it's safe to say by now that you're the expert in trolling.

The book is a monster and a very difficult read. The first chapter alone is almost 350 pages. If you get through that, you will get through the book. It is meticulously researched and well written, but I don't share Bugliosi's conviction that Oswald acted alone. He was prepared to concede some points that other proponents of the Warren Commission refused to accept, so he does deserve credit for that. He writes that he believed that Oswald was an intelligent individual, blighted by his dyslexia. Posner (rather cruelly) has every single person on first meeting Lee, describe him as the 'dumbest bastard on earth'. I don't believe that people would make such judgements based on a first meeting. Bugliosi also concedes that the Sylvia Odio incident actually took place and that it was Oswald at her door on that September evening back in 1963. Again, Posner tries (and fails) to discredit Odio and portray her as being unhinged. Posner also tried to downplay Lee's proficiency in the Russian language. When Lee returned to the States, he had the opportunity to become a translator. Lee also gave a speech to Jesuits in Mobile, and many people in the audience felt that he was 'articulate' and 'college educated'. Posner stated that Lee was uptight and didn't make an impression during this speech. Posner wanted to portray Lee in the worst possible light. In doing so, the writer was intellectually dishonest. There are oddities and such that Bugliosi tries to explain or not pay much attention to. One of the naval personnel present during the President's autopsy at Bethesda, stopped Commander Humes and told him that 'The police already have the man who did this. Is it really necessary to perform a full autopsy?' . When we consider that J.Edgar Hoover was not even aware of what was going on on the ground during those hectic hours, it is odd that this Navy officer was certain that Oswald was the lone killer. Did he have a hotline to the Dallas Police Department? Bugliosi also skirts over the note that Oswald left for James Hosty at FBI headquarters in Dallas. Apparently, Oswald threatened to blow up the building. So, why was he not immediately arrested? Bugliosi's attempt to destroy Oliver Stone's JFK was a little over the top. Not everyone who watched the film accepted it as fact. It is a masterpiece, but there are clearly issues with a lot of the claims in the film. However, when he wrote that history can not be altered with or such, he clearly has never studied the subject. Historical "facts" are often expanded upon or changed when new evidence comes to light. It was Socrates who said that we must question everything.

The only Troll I see in here is yourself. I looked back through the comments, and you came here to do nothing but attack others who came here to listen to the radio program. It's like Xenu said. You have been welcome to attempt to provide an argument, but you have done nothing except ridicule people, and use the term "whatever" as an argument.

Yeah I just dont understand if the curb is about 125 feet IN FRONT of the limo - plus the rifle would be aiming sharply downward, WHY would Oswald ignore the limo all the way down houston, watch it turn on elm - then the limo is right under him - he ignores it?? aims down the street at a totally different rifle angle - shoots the curb, THEN aims perfectly for the 2nd 2 shots? why?

"This simple Case" Geezus. You know you are being lied to when the greatest cheerleader for the Warren Commission says something so stupid like that. The Demonstrable lies of Vincent Bugliosi are legendary. It was he who said that the 2nd wallet found at the murder scene of Officer Tippet was Officer's Tippets. He also made the statement that the reason the body was taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital for the Autopsy was because there weren't any Forensic Pathologists at Parkland! Can you imagine that? A hospital that had done thousands of autopsies, most of them gunshot wounds didn't have forensic Pathologists. Bugliosi was clearly a paid Apologist to prop up the Warren Report because NO ONE would believe the "theory" of the magic bullet. BTw, Oswald did not flee. He was in the break room having a Coke when the officer stopped him. Of course, the fake trial that Bugliosi participated in for Oswald is a complete farce.

Where's the whole book?

Vincent dismissed all evidence to the contrary and never confronted it.

The president head is indeed propelled forward ,cause as you look at the film so does Jackie .the reason is as the president car brakes they go forward and as it excelerates away they are flinged back in the seat .the car does nearly stop as the cars behind catch up as with the police bikes do as well. the shot hits Kennedy as they take off at the same time watch the film

Audio is horrible, clipping makes this unlistenable

just view robert oswald interview.Noone knows a nut case like a brother. Lee acted alone.

Vince is wrong about one thing.He will never change the mind of some conspiracy buffs.They throw common sense out the window.i have had conspiracy theorists insist they have read the whole book.And still they say it is full of lies.

Wow! Oswald killed Kennedy because Marina and Lee had been fighting and she wouldn't take him back. Now that convinces me. Lee was so angry he went out and pulled the Secret Service agents away from the limo at Love Field, rearranged the cars in the motorcade, and instructed the motorcycle riders to stay behind the limo. Lee also convinced THREE future presidents to be in Dallas that day too. This guy has me convinced. Lee was good!!!

One thing that comes up about JFK's head movement during the shooting is "Back and to the left". I've been hearing that for over 40 years. At Zapruder frame 313 JFK's head is pushed forward 2 inches from the bullet entering the back of his head. At frame 314 to frame 321 his head can be seen as moving back and to the left. Vince Bugliosi says that was caused by his back muscles. A Neuro-muscle reaction. What has been over looked is that the round that hit JFK in the head blew his head open above his right ear and forward to his hair line. A Massive wound. The movement of his head was caused by Newton's 3rd law of motion. The Gun Blast of the bullet blowing open his head was responsible for that reaction. The fact is, there were NO Shots from the Front, no shot from the Grassy Knoll, no badgeman, just Oswald. 3 shots, 2 hits, 1 assassin.

Oswald was only the Patsy😊

still on that disproven dictabelt?

I hate to revisit this BUT, I'd like to ask Mr. Bugliosi how: if the first shot missed and hit the street in front of the TSBD, was James Tague wounded at the underpass?

It amazes me that grown educated people believe this. Critical Thinkers Long Ago Knew there was a Conspiracy. It is no wonder America has fallen as far as it has.

Lol.

So then why do you bring it up here at You tube? Isn't that you full purpose? If all else fails, block the person who is trying to respond to your accusations and ridicule. You just did this to me on another video. You call Xenu a "liar", yet you are nothing but a coward!

Tom O’Neil

The reason conspiracy theories are so attractive is they make a much more interesting story. The story of an ex-marine loner commie taking a rifle to work and shooting from a perfect sniper's nest is comparatively boring. The truth usually is

Vincent bugliosi is full of himself his book is not my worth my time

Yes I've read it and I have problems with it and how conspiracy theorists are ridiculed by the likes of Bugliosi.

If you were Oswald and you had time to plan this act and plan your get away, why the hell would you leave spent shell casings on the floor and leave the rifle with your finger prints on it by the window when you could have easily disposed of the evidence?

Bugliosi believes that the first shot missed. Therefore this had to be the bullet which caused James Tague's wound. Tague was standing over 270 feet from where this bullet supposedly struck the pavement! In my opinion Bugliosi has given us a second magic bullet! As others have said Bugliosi assassinated JFK again.

I love Vince, and I know he has passed away, BUT Vince, the idea of a conspiracy here {which I believe likely happened} would NOT include Oswald doing the shooting for the group, and then being picked up and executed or whatever Vince supposes would have happened if there was a conspiracy. If there WAS a conspiracy, Oswald likely would have had very little to possibly zero clue about it and be used as their 'patsy', which is what he claimed he was. They would not have relied on him to kill the president with a crappy gun on a long shot, where the car could just speed away, by an average shooter. His behavior after the shooting can be understood as a man who realized or was realizing the insane situation he was possibly now in, and he was panicked.

Oswald would've made a terrible SJW - he was far too sane. Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!

This book isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

He tries to overwhelm you with insignificant details about nothing relating to the assassination

Wait what? He says RFK initially believed in a conspiracy but changed his mind (4.50). Even a newbie like me has heard about his own anti-Castro team who he may have had to protect in later years by changing his mind to no conspiracy...

The interviewer failed to address the pristine condition of the magic bullet after striking Connelys rib and wrist.

Reframing History. Vincent Bugliosi, the "kooky" lone assassin theorist.

Ouch! Look, let's just agree to disagree, OK? But in my mind it will always be "Reframing Oswald".

Jim Di Eugenio takes this farcical book apart.

This didn't age well

The best insult you can come up with is: "You must work for the New York Times?" Thanks for putting me in the same league as Nobel laureates and Pulitzer prize winning journalists. How complimentary would you be if you weren't an insufferable numbskull? Thanks buddy!

How could you take anything Bugliosi says seriously after he wrote Helter Skelter another pathetic piece of work and as you know the book helter skelter was about Charles Manson fiction just like this fiction😂😂😂😂😂😂

Sorry to keep posting here, but all the adulation for Vincent Bugliosi and his pathetic book (only O'reilly and Posner's books are worse) is so hard to fathom. A prosecutor with the end result already determined , like the Warren Commission, is dubious at best. Go with someone who is at least trying to investigate. Mr. Bugliosi was a great prosecutor, but he is not seeking the truth, as with the WC, he has the result in mind before he begins. A very humorous video in KZfaq shows Mr. Bugliosi in a friendly debate with Jesse Ventura , but when Ventura brings up the name of a CIA agent who had ties to Oswald, Mr. Bugliosi gets nervous and orders the cameraman to stop filming. Mr. Bugliosi may have been a great prosecutor but this book is impressive only for it's size.

In just over 30 minutes, this guy trashes people who don't believe the official story, Lee Oswald, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone...and many authors. Ouch! I'd find him credible if he stuck to the facts and stopped the bashing. "The other writers are wrong and this is why..."

Vincent Bugliosi was a condescending arrogant person whose so called epic book is as awful as Gerald Posner's. He was a prosecutor who won a made for TV mock trial and then took it seriously, he then wrote this book as a good prosecutor would, showing the jury, or in this case readers, only half truths. That's what a prosecutor does, tell half truths, showing only the evidence that supports his case against the defendants. It's up to the defense to show other evidence to support the defendant. Bugliosi tells half truths such as RFK supported the WC findings. It's not a lie but only a half truth, it's common knowledge that he supported the WC publicly , but of course he never believed it privately, he was searching for the truth and the killers from the beginning, suspected LBJ, hired people to investigate the CIA and organized crime on it. Why people praise Bugliosi and this book is incomprehensible , he never adequately explains the absurd single bullet theory, (WC had to hire another lawyer, Arlen Specter, to explain how one bullet could kill JFK and come out of his body then strike John Connolly. So he conjured up the single bullet theory, another example of a lawyer not searching for the truth, but having pre-determined the ultimate goal and twisting the evidence to reach that goal). Just like Bugliosi, a lawyer with the end result already established and showing only evidence he wants to. Bugliosi never explains the bizarre actions of the secret service , or why LBJ ordered the limousine moved from Dallas so that the physical evidence could not be seen. Or why the driver slowed down to a near complete stop at the time of the shots, or why witnessed all pointed to the Grassy Knoll, or why the doctor's testimony of where the entrance was meant that the fatal show came from the front not the back. Or on and on, Bugliosi cannot explain so many things it is hard to keep count. In some areas Bugliosi is pathetic , such as trying to explain why Oswald was killed off by Ruby, ignoring that there is a video of Ruby himself, being taken away by police, points to LBJ. Why anyone would take a book written by a prosecutor with a predetermined result is beyond me, I would think a book written by a serious investigator who actually seeks the truth is more worthwhile.

An absolute testament to himself.. Vinny prosecuted Manson while any cockroach could gotten a conviction. His should have called his book Self Centered Gasbag... Its horrible.

""The Los Angeles Times" said that this is a book for the ages and when I wrote the book that was my intent to write a book for the ages and the "Times" says "'Reclaiming History' may finally move those accusations of conspiracy beyond civilized debate. At last someone has done it - put all of the pieces together. It is a book for the ages."" xenu the times ? the new york times ?. firstly who in the times reviewed and researched all the information on the book ? , as you said more that 1500 pages not including the cd , so who reviewed it and researched its accuracy and HOW LONG DID IT TAKE ? . the new york times refuses to review any "conspiracy" orientated books that dispute / refute the official version of events . even if those books are in their top 10 best sellers . the truth is that as with case closed and the warren report and its volumes the media FELL ALL OVER THEM SELVES heaping praise on books they couldnt possibly have properly reviewed and researched . i believe (from memory ) that on the very SAME day the 26 warren volumes were released that it was the new york times was the paper that printed in essence THERE IS NOTHING IN THOSE VOLUMES THAT ALTERS THE REPORT FINDINGS . the truth is very different . on the day the warren report was released cbs had a special program aired praising and supporting it . here are a few tidbits about bugliosi and his book that the media would know about HAD THEY BOTHERED TO RESEARCH . he appeared once in a panel that included mark lane , he attempted to mouth the lie that when lane called helen markham that lane pretended to be will fritz , in essence that lane called markham and impersonated a police captain called will fritz . lane had recorded the telephone conversation , the tape recording started with him introducing himself by saying hello im mr lane an attorney investigating the oswald case . lane promptly reminded bugliosi of the LIBEL laws and bugliosi thought better of spouting his false allegation . he was undoubtedly a very smart man , but when it came to the jfk case his intelligence went out the window . this guy once wrote that THERE WAS NO CLEANING OF THE LIMO , he went further NO WITNESSES WHO CLAIMED THE LIMO WAS CLEANED , and further to that he said THERE WERE NO STATEMENTS IN REGARD THE LIMO BEING CLEANED . press reporters watched as the back of the limo was cleaned and they reported on it in articles in the paper . that also takes care of number 2 . i personally know of two official statements in relation to the limo being cleaned , one by a nurse who said she was asked to bring a bucket of water to clean the limo , she said she would but with the commotion she forgot . the second statement was from a person who actually brought the bucket of water out . is bugliosi for real ? 22 years of research and he doesnt know this ? . he wrote in his book that upon arriving at work that morning with wes frazier that oswald got out of fraziers vehicle , grabbed his package and took off about as fast as he could leaving poor old wes behind bewildered and wondering what was going on . the implication here is obviously that oswald took off quickly to stop frazier getting a good look at his package or to stop him asking questions . but its not the truth OH NO . frazier testified that oswald did exit the car but that he didnt take off as bugliosi falsely claimed . no , frazier testified that oswald STOOD WAITING for him by the cyclone fence. at first according to frazier he had not realized oswald was waiting for him , as he had a few spare minutes frazier decided to sit in his car . when he saw that oswald was WAITING FOR HIM he jumped up turned off the engine , got out of the car , but as he did that was when he said oswald walked off . frazier decided he had no great hurry , so he made no effort to catch oswald up , he slowly walked through the rail yard with oswald about 50 feet ahead . so bugliosi either didnt read fraziers testimony or he lied , the readers can decide which . he claimed in his book that OSWALD SLIPPED UP AND PLACED HIMSELF ON THE 6TH FLOOR AT 12.30 . so what did bugliosi base that on ? it was the interrogation notes of postal inspector harry holmes . i wont do this verbatim but i will give you the gist of what the notes say and how they say them ., the follow (not verbatim just summary) is roughly what the notes say oswald said . AT ABOUT 11.45 EVERYONE BROKE FOR LUNCH , ONE OF MY CO WORKERS ASKED ME IF I WAS GOING TO LUNCH , I SAID IN A MINUTE , AS THEY WENT DOWN IN THE ELEVATOR I SHOUTED SEND THE ELEVATOR BACK UP . BEFORE I KNEW WHAT HAD HAPPENED THE COMMOTION SURROUNDING THE ASSASSINATION OCCURRED , A POLICE MAN CAME IN AND POINTED A GUN AT ME . now anyone with any proper level of research will see the problem with the above . let me explain . at about 11.40am - 11.45 am the floor laying staff on the 6th floor broke for lunch , they broke early so they could see jfk . one did indeed ask oswald who was working IF HE WAS GOING TO LUNCH , people like bugliosi like to falsely assert that HE WAS INVITED TO EAT AND DECLINED BECAUSE HE HAD "OTHER PLANS" . there was no invite , it was just a general in passing HEY ITS LUNCH TIME and little more . as they entered the elevator oswald said to them send the elevator back up . that doesnt mean the sent the elevator back up to him but that he wanted them to ensure they pulled down the wooden gate on the elevator . if the gate was up no one could call the elevator . next thing we see is that oswald says BEFORE I KNEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING A COP CAME IN AND POINTED A GUN AT ME . anyone seeing the problem yet . well firstly the encounter above with the officer was with officer baker ON THE 2ND FLOOR . at it took place about 90 seconds after the shooting . so we have two different times here ,11.45am and 12.32 pm , so the notes by holmes very clearly accidentally have mixed two different events 47 MINUTES APART ATLEAST , and it seems the great vincent bugliosi with 22 years research didnt spot the OBVIOUS PROBLEM . also the encounter with the police officer WAS NOT ON THE 6TH FLOOR but down on the 2nd floor . so these notes dont state that oswlad placed himself on the 6th floor at 12.30 CONTRARY TO WHAT BUGLIOSI SAID , oswald continually and ONLY said that he ate lunch alone in the lunchroom . he claimed in his book that oswald lied and tried to give himeself an alibi . bugliosi said oswald claimed HE HAD EATEN LUNCH WITH JAMES JARMIN AND HAROLD NORMAN . so where did he glean this information ? well from a snippit of testimony given by will fritz WITHOUT BENEFIT OF HIS INTERROGATION NOTES . this testimony is not only inaccurate but untrue . you see fritz own interrogation notes along with other notes taken by other people show that oswald NEVER said he ate with jarmin and norman , he merely mentioned seeing them at some point , oswald was recorded several times stating that HE ATE LUNCH ALONE . didnt bugliosi know this ? , of course he did after all he cited the interrogation notes in his book . so what we have here is bugliosi with a choice , in one hand he had will fritz inaccurate testimony (that the bug knew was inaccurate ) that appeared to make oswald look like a liar , and in the other the bug had the interrogation notes proving both him and fritz WRONG . have a guess what he used in his book ? yup you guessed it WILL FRITZ INACCURATE TESTIMONY . this is LN 101 , and that is NEVER LET THE TRUTH GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD LIE . one cant do 22 years of research AND NOT KNOW THE STUFF ABOVE , bugliosi knew all the facts i posted above and still wrote his BS . and the media made no effort at all to check if he was accurate . their job was to applaud any work supporting the official findings and truth be damned .