Jump to content


Spartacus

Vincent Bugliosi, DVP and CTKA


  • Please log in to reply
826 replies to this topic

#1 Jim DiEugenio

Jim DiEugenio

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2010 - 06:28 PM

In this following thread I have posted the links to my multi series critique of VInce Bugliosi's bloated, vitriolic, wandering, panegyric for the disastrous Warren Commission titled Reclaiming History.

One of the rather surprising things about this 2, 700 page rerun is how little new is in it. In fact, as you will see, there is much more new in my review than there is in this book. Another thing that is surprising is how acerbic Vince ended up being with the critics. I believe that two things happened on the way to completion: 1.) Bugliosi realized he made a mistake, therefore he tried to substitute length for depth and substance. That is he thought the length would give the book weight and gravitas, and at least make it intimidating. 2.) VInce realized that the MSM is in bed with the WC, therefore he could be as vituperative as he wanted towards the critics. If he caricatured them and demonized them, he could deflate their arguments in advance. Which is the only way to explain his long and acid intro. Which I discuss in Part One.

For obvious reasons, very few people have read the whole book. And, believe me, you don' t need to. In this regard I am reminded of the conversation JFK had when he was running for president in 1960 in West VIrginia. Standing outside a factory he was shaking hands with the workers. One of them looked at him in his tailored suit and shirt and said, "You don't look like you've worked a day in your life." Kennedy paused and said, "Well,compared to you , I probably haven't." The man replied, "You didn't miss anything." Reading this book was a lot of sluggish drudgery. But we are to believe that Tom Hanks read it all, including the CD. I don't think so. He was obviously impressed by the name and the length of the book, which of course was the point. Only someone very familiar with this case can understand the plan behind the book.

In addition to the two pronged attack described above, VB decided to include the critical arguments he thought he could counter in the text. The ones he thought were more difficult to counter are in the CD, the ones he cannot counter, he just leaves out. A good example in his discussion of the Ruby polygraph which you will find in Part 7 of my series. Bugliosi completely leaves out the fact that one of the most important settings, for galvanic skin response, was lowered during the test. The author leaves that out, but includes a history of the TSBD and Parkland Hospital. Which tells you a lot about the book i.e. how it got that long, and the author's agenda.

David Von Pein was trumpeting this book, get this, years before it was published as the work that would smash the critical community to bits. When it was released, he took out pages on the internet to issue what he called a review, which was not a review at all. It was an adjunct press release where he used pages of Bugliosi's own words, plus an audio reocrding of the book. It was such obvious PR that the publisher overlooked any possible fair use violations. Somehow, DVP overlooked all the errors of omission and commission that I pointed out in every aspect of the book. For instance, Bugliosi whole heartedly endorses Dale Myers' fraudulent simulation Secrets of a Homicide and uses the false fact that JBC was six inches inboard of JFK, when Pat Pat Speer has noted this was wrong, it was really less than half that.

I have included below links to my critique.

http://www.ctka.net/...osi_review.html

http://www.ctka.net/...i_2_review.html

http://www.ctka.net/...i_3_review.html

http://www.ctka.net/...i_4_review.html

http://www.ctka.net/...i_5_review.html

http://www.ctka.net/..._5b_review.html

http://www.ctka.net/...i_6_review.html

http://www.ctka.net/...i_7_review.html

http://www.ctka.net/...i_8_review.html

http://www.ctka.net/...i_9_review.html

Edited by Jim DiEugenio, 22 August 2010 - 09:25 PM.


#2 Jim DiEugenio

Jim DiEugenio

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2010 - 07:05 PM

Another person who DVP props up as an objective authority on this case is Gary Mack/Larry Dunkel. In fact, today he serves as a funnel for the Fable Guy to drop information, some would say disinformation, at this forum. This included trying to say that contrary to what I wrote, the FBI did find the ammo LHO used in the MC. Well, the so-called LHO ammo was found near a gravel pit and it was Italian ammo not WCC ammo--could not be used in the assassination. But that did not bother Larry.

To see why it would not bother him, take a look at the following reviews of one of his so-called documentaries on the JFK case. You will see that Dunkel does not care what he misrepresents or leaves out. In this particular program, in his recreation of the killing of Oswald he actually erased WIll Fritz from the lead position in front of LHO, which, as I point out, is the key to the murder. But Gary didn't care. Its as easy as altering the entrance and exit wounds of JFK to make a shot from the sixth floor align. Which as we will see, he also did.

http://www.ctka.net/.../ruby_mack.html

http://www.ctka.net/...uby_mack_2.html

http://www.ctka.net/...uby_mack_3.html

#3 Jim DiEugenio

Jim DiEugenio

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2010 - 08:38 PM

More on DVP's buddy who he is a willing conduit for here, Gary Mack/Larry Dunkel.

This is a battery for reviews of the now infamous special called Inside the Target Car.

This show can now be seen as an object lesson in knowing deception, right up there with Dale Myers phony Secrets of a Homicide

One of the worst parts was when Mack/Dunkel said that a shot from the knoll would have hit Jackie Kennedy therefore it could not have come from there. Complete balderdash. In Part 2 of my review, I also point out how Mack/Dunkel altered the autopsy report to make possible a shot from the sixth floor.

The icing on the cake: the supposed replica skulls were not replicas. As proven by the fact that the test bullets did not fragment. This is what makes possible the "shatter" effect for a shot from the front with a different round which Dunkel and DVP pronounce as showing that a shot from the front was not possible.

All in all, a pitiful exercise in propaganda worthy of Dan Rather. Which is why DVP likes Dunkel the Fable Guy.

http://www.ctka.net/...get_car_jd.html

The upper right directory will take you to the rest of the series.

#4 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,110 posts

Posted 22 August 2010 - 08:54 PM

Jim,

My hat is off to you for having the will and stamina not only to read but to review Bugliosi's monstrous pile of trash. I could not sit down and read that endless, mean-spirited WC apologia in a million years. If I tried to, in the process I would either have a heart attack or shoot myself.

#5 David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:11 PM

Jim D.,

Thank you for starting this "Vincent Bugliosi, DVP and CTKA" thread. I appreciate the opportunity (within the proper forum thread) to also provide readers with my many "Debunking DiEugenio" and "Battling A Conspiracy [blank]"* posts....for "equal time", which is only fair.

* = I promised myself that I would not use the word that goes in the "blank" above in any of my posts here at The Education Forum since I re-joined on August 2, 2010. And I intend to stick to that policy (as difficult as it is sometimes).

And even though (as yet anyway) Jim D. hasn't posted links to his anti-DVP articles from CTKA, I feel these rebuttals are still appropriate for this thread, because many of the articles and posts linked below contain rebuttals to Jim's constant anti-Bugliosi and anti-Gary Mack articles too.

And I'm sure, in time, James will post links to his silly DVP critiques. But if not, you can find many links to those CTKA laughfests within my own posts linked below:

Posted Image


Posted Image


BATTLING DiEUGENIO SOME MORE

DVP VS. DiEUGENIO (THE COMPLETE SERIES)(OVER 50 LINKS)

Edited by David Von Pein, 22 August 2010 - 09:25 PM.


#6 Jim DiEugenio

Jim DiEugenio

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:11 PM

Believe me Ron, it wasn't easy.

There are books you read on this case where, afterwards, you feel like a better human being or more empowered e.g. JFK and the Unspeakable, Spy Saga.

This was not one of them.

ANd once you read the intro, that is really the whole book in a nutshell.

Now, does anyone think that Hanks, Paxton or Goetzman read the 2,700 pages of book?

And if they did, how could they comprehend it? Because, as I noted, you have to be very familiar with the literature to understand what Bugliosi is up to.

Edited by Jim DiEugenio, 22 August 2010 - 09:27 PM.


#7 Jim DiEugenio

Jim DiEugenio

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:17 PM

That's great Dave, but instead of your cowardly paper debates, do you mind answering some of the questions i have posed already.

If not, this is more of your PR for Bugliosi.

Did VInce mention that the polygraph for RUby had the GSR turned down?

If not, then is that fact not in the HSCA report?

Does VInce source the HSCA report?

If so then why did he not mention that finding?

Does this not violate his pledge made in the intro to present the critics' arguments as they would themselves?

Did you note this in your very long discussion of the book?

Edited by Jim DiEugenio, 22 August 2010 - 09:43 PM.


#8 Jim DiEugenio

Jim DiEugenio

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:23 PM

Since I doubt DVP will answer the above question in any prompt or direct way, let me answer it from my review, Part 7:

Bell Herndon was the RUby polygraph operator supplied by the FBI.

"It seems that Herndon had a fallback plan in case the above tactics failed. He set the GSR device at only a quarter of its maximum reading at the start of the test. He then actually lessened it from there. (ibid, p. 213) The panel noted that this was the opposite of accepted practice. The sensitivity should have never been that low to begin with, but it actually should have been increased as the test went on because of its overlong nature. (ibid) Because of this, the panel considered the GSR reading to be completely useless. It was so bad that they suspected the machine itself was defective. They wrote that Herndon should have had a second machine available. And he should have used it. (ibid)

To me, the strongest indication that Herndon's violations were deliberate was in his use of a faulty control question to map out a patterned response. When Ruby was asked "Have you ever been arrested?", Herndon testified that the response resulted in a "noticeable rise in blood pressure" (ibid, p. 217) The panel disagreed with this because the rise was seven seconds after the answer. Which is at least three times longer than a normal reaction. They believed the reaction was due to a physical movement at the seven second point, which Herndon had actually recorded. (ibid) The panel then applied the clincher. They wrote that Ruby's reaction to the preceding question—"Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?" to which he replied in the negative—recorded the largest valid GSR reaction in the first test series. Plus there was a constant suppression of breathing and a rise in blood pressure at the time. So although Herndon opined Ruby was being truthful in this reply, to the panel the possibility was open that he was lying. (ibid, p. 218) What makes this even more apparent is that it was the largest GSR reaction 1.) When Ruby was relatively fresh at the start, and 2.) Even though the GSR was at one fourth of its sensitivity.

In light of such a systematic and rigorous bypassing of standard practice, the question arises: Could someone as experienced and knowledgeable as Herndon have set out to violate so many rules without the OK from above? I doubt it.

How does the author deal with all these troubling, even distressing, facts? In the main text of Reclaiming History, Bugliosi mentions Ruby's polygraph on two pages. He writes that Herndon concluded that, if one considers Ruby mentally competent, there was no area of deception present in regard to relevant questions. And he states no disagreement with Herndon's conclusion there. (Bugliosi, p. 1129) In the End Notes, he finally mentions the HSCA panel. He deals with their 21 page report in four sentences. He now admits that Herndon made "errors". He specifically notes two: 1.) An excess of people in the room, and 2.) The surfeit of relevant questions. (p. 645) And that's it. Check for yourself."

In other words, VB does not mention the GSR hijinks. Even when they indicate that Ruby was lying when answering the key question "Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?"

Yet he knew about them since he sources the HSCA report.

So he did not present the critics' arguments the way they themselves would, or as say, I would.

Did DVP point this failing out anywhere?

Edited by Jim DiEugenio, 23 August 2010 - 03:12 PM.


#9 Jim DiEugenio

Jim DiEugenio

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:32 PM

To repeat,my analysis of VB's treatment of the Ruby polygraph is a perfect illustration of the plan of the book.

The things he thinks can help him, or he can counter easily, are in the text.

The things he feel may be a problem are in the CD. (Too many people in the room, a surfeit of relevant questions.)

The things he does not want to deal with or cannot deal with he leaves out. (Turning down the already low GSR setting)

Davey, did you notice his plan also?

Did you tell your readers about it?

Edited by Jim DiEugenio, 22 August 2010 - 09:45 PM.


#10 Robert Morrow

Robert Morrow

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,804 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX
  • Interests:I welcome phone calls and emails relating to the JFK assassination. My phone is 512-306-1510 in Austin, TX and my email is Morrow321@aol.com. If you would like my "LBJ and CIA murdered JFK" file, please email me. It has LOTS of super info and web links.

    ALSO ===>

    I would bet my house, my car, my bank account and my penis that the Clintons & Buddy Young sent 3 Arkansas state trooper goons to beat the living hell out of and nearly murder Gary Johnson (the lawyer for Larry Nichols & neighbor of Gennifer Flowers) on June 26, 1992. They did this because Gary Johnson had security camera videotapes of Bill Clinton often entering Gennifer's condo. The Clintons were denying the Bill/Gennifer affair at that time. The Clinton thugs then stole the tapes. Watch the "New Clinton Chronicles" and go to minute 48 for the Gary Johnson interview.

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:40 PM

Speaking of Gary Mack (and Nicola Longford) of the Sixth Floor Museum fraud ... Stephen Fagin, the associate curator of the 6th Floor Museum called ME and asked ME if I would give an oral history about the JFK assassination and we scheduled it for August 17, 2010. I said I would be glad to, and also please tell your bosses at the 6th floor museum that complaining to the Dallas police and trying to run Ameican patriot and truth teller Robert Groden off the Grassy Knoll really creates a lot of BAD WILL and unhappiness with the JFK assassination research community.

Well within 2 days I get an email from the nice Stephen Fagin CANCELLING my oral history - which THEY had asked I give - and with no make-up date included... Just another example of the leadership of the 6th Floor Museum covering for the murderers and conspirators of John F. Kennedy's assassination. SEE THE FOLLOWING:

You can't really discuss the JFK Assassination without discussing the role of the media and academia in the cover up of the assassination of John Kennedy. A perfect example of that is the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas which promotes the Big Lie as they protect the murderers and conspirators of John Kennedy.

Currently Nicola Longford and Gary Mack are the ones who are using the Sixth Floor Museum as a propaganda tool to promote the Big Lie, thus attempting to shield the public from the ugly truth of the elite domestic political conspiracy to murder John Kennedy. The police report that the management at the Sixth Floor Museum are the ones making complaints trying to run-off American patriot, hero and TRUTH TELLER Robert Groden from peacefully selling his fine research materials on the Grassy Knoll

CANCELLING MY ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW - OUT OF THE BLUE, WITH NO EXPLANATION - LOOKS LIKE POLITICS ARE INVOLVED! - (so dreadfully common in the JFK case for 47 years)

I was recently contacted by Stephen Fagin, the associate curator of the The Sixth Floor Museum to do one of the 80 oral history interviews that the Sixth Floor does every year. I accepted and we scheduled the afternoon of August 17th for that interview. I said to him thanks, and also please tell your bosses to quit trying to run off American patriot and hero Robert Groden (and other peaceful researchers selling their materials) from the Grassy Knoll. Because that kind of behavior by the Sixth Floor Museum management really turns off the public ... in addition to the fact that they push the Big Lie about the JFK assassination.

So, I get this email today (8-5-10) from the very nice Stephen Fagin telling me we are canceling the scheduled oral interview, with no re-schedule date. In other words, just canceling out of the blue. I think it is a reasonable assumption that Stephen Fagin is coming under internal political pressure (a good guess would be either Nicole Longford or Gary Mack) to not interview me. Is it not disgusting the way the Sixth Floor Museum is run? The leadership, I mean. Nothing against Stephen Fagin, he is under pressure from the con artists and charlatans at the Sixth Floor Museum who make a mockery of the JFK Assassination.

CANCELLATION LETTER, OUT OF THE BLUE - NO RESCHEDULE DATE, (looks like politics to me!)

Hello Mr. Morrow,

You very kindly responded to my e-mail regarding the Oral History Project at The Sixth Floor Museum, and we tentatively scheduled a telephone conversation for Tuesday, August 17. I am afraid that I will not be able to speak with you on that date after all, and I apologize for the inconvenience. However, I hope we will have the opportunity to chat about your research efforts at some point in the future.

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Stephen Fagin
Associate Curator
The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza
411 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75202-3308
Phone: 214.747.6660 ext. 5578
Fax: 214.747.6662

ORIGINAL INVITATION LETTER (For an interview of me for oral history, which I readily accepted)

Dear Mr. Morrow:

My name is Stephen Fagin, and I am the associate curator at The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas—located in the former Texas School Book Depository building at the site of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Since opening in 1989, the museum has actively recorded personal memories and reflections on John F. Kennedy, his death, and the 1960s for our institution’s ongoing Oral History Project.

One of the museum’s summer interns came across your interesting entry in the Memory Book recently and passed it along to me. You name six possible individuals/organizations that fit into your personal theory on the assassination, and I would be interested in chatting with you about your interest in this subject, research, and the overall impact that the death of President Kennedy had on your life. If you are willing, it would be a pleasure to capture your thoughts via a brief telephone interview for our Oral History Project.

This non-profit archival project includes nearly 800 individuals from all over the world, among them eyewitnesses, law enforcement officials, community leaders, filmmakers and researchers, 1960s schoolchildren, and more than 100 members of the news media. These informal recordings preserve information that might otherwise be lost. Among our participants have been Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Tom Landry, General Chuck Yeager, and hundreds of others.

As time marches on and the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination approaches in 2013, I believe that it is incredibly important to preserve as much firsthand information as possible for the benefit of future historians, students, and researchers. Please note that the museum is not investigating the assassination or drawing any conclusions with this project; our goal is to capture personal perspectives on this seminal moment in American history.

I personally feel that everyone has a story worth capturing, and I sincerely hope you agree. At your convenience, please contact me Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm, at (214) 747-6660, or at this e-mail address. Please take a look at the attached PDF file, and you can also visit our website, www.jfk.org, for more information on the Museum and this project.

Thank you very much for your time—and I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Stephen Fagin
Associate Curator
The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza

ADDITIONAL NOTE: I HAD TO REQUEST FROM THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM, NICOLA LONGFORD IN PARTICULAR, 3 OR 4 TIMES (orally and in email) BEFORE SHE WOULD RELEASE THE NAMES OF THEIR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DALLAS COUNTY HISTORICAL FOUNDATION (d.b.a. Sixth Floor Museum), A VERY SIMPLE REQUEST WHICH THEY ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO.

Dear Mr. Morrow, [email dated 7/9/2010]

These are the names of current Board members.

Jill Johnson (Board Chair)

Paul Coggins

James Hollifield

Jane Wetzel

Nancy Latner

Sandy Greyson

William C. Rea

Evelyn Henry Miller

Justin Rosales

Michael Lowenberg


Sincerely,

Nicola Longford

From: Morrow321@aol.com [mailto:Morrow321@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:12 PM
To: Nicola Longford
Subject: Re: Enquiry to The Sixth Floor Museum

Ms. Longford,

I have made a very simple inquiry which is who are the board of directors of the Dallas County Historical Foundation (Sixth Floor Museum). You are required to give that out if someone requests it. How many times do I have to request this information? Again, who are the board members (and who is the chairman) of the Dallas County Historical Foundation? The information on Dallas County web site is outdated: http://www.dallascou...dex.html/#found

And, yes, I do have many suggestions on how to improve the Sixth Floor Museum, especially in its accuracy relating to the JFK assassination. I have taken the tour several times; I enjoyed it - but basically it is a fraud and a lie relating to who murdered John Kennedy and why they murdered him.

So please email me the list of current board members and chair of the Dallas County Historical Foundation, dba Sixth Floor Museum.

Thank-you,

Robert Morrow Austin, TX 512-306-1510

Edited by Robert Morrow, 22 August 2010 - 09:41 PM.


#11 David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:43 PM

Jim DiEugenio, as usual, is making a boiling volcano out of a wet-weather spring (to borrow a phrase from Andy Griffith/Andy Taylor).

Vincent Bugliosi knows full well that polygraph examinations are not conclusive and ironclad evidence in the first place. And Vince has said that very thing during many of his 2007 interviews while promoting his JFK book.

But the most important thing when discussing Jack Ruby's polygraph test is the fact that RUBY HIMSELF INSISTED THAT HE BE GIVEN ONE, as Bugliosi says in the book excerpt below:

"Completely apart from the issue of how accurate a polygraph test is, most lay people, as I imagine was the case with Ruby, believe it can detect a liar. No one asked Ruby to take a polygraph test, so the argument cannot be made that he went along with it because he felt he would look guilty if he refused. It was Ruby who insisted he be given the test, and although this is not conclusive, it very definitely is circumstantial evidence of his innocence on the issue of whether he knew Oswald and whether he acted alone." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1128 of "Reclaiming History"

Related VB quotes:

"Even if we were to assume the total invalidity of the polygraph test given to Ruby, his willingness--in fact, his insistence--that he be given one is strong circumstantial evidence of his innocent state of mind and the truthfulness about everything he said. Lay people, including Ruby, for the most part believe that lie detector tests can detect lies. It is a considerable stretch to believe that if Ruby were guilty of being involved in a conspiracy, he would insist on taking a polygraph test, supremely confident he could conceal his guilt and pass the test." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 645 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)


"It should be noted that contrary to popular belief, a polygraph does not show whether or not one is telling the truth, only whether he believes he is; that is, the test, if it is accurate (which law enforcement feels it normally is when administered by a competent operator), measures the presence or absence of deception from the physiological response (breathing, pulse, perspiration, etc.) to the questions. Sociopaths (those who have no conscience or feeling of guilt or contrition for what they have done) often are able to lie on the test without the lie being betrayed by a physiological response." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1031 of "Reclaiming History" (footnote)


Maybe Jim DiEugenio thinks that Jack Ruby was a "sociopath". ~shrug~

BTW, I agree with some of the things DiEugenio has said concerning Jack Ruby's really weird polygraph test. It was essentially worthless. Ruby himself was even involved in how the questions were going to be asked. Very strange.

But the key point is: Ruby insisted on taking the test.

Does Jim D. think Ruby KNEW IN ADVANCE that the test would be conducted in such a strange (and lengthy) fashion, with Ruby being allowed input into the questions he would be asked by FBI polygraph examiner Bell Herndon?

Edited by David Von Pein, 22 August 2010 - 10:11 PM.


#12 Jim DiEugenio

Jim DiEugenio

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:47 PM

Didn't DVP just try and pass off Mack/Dunkel as serving both sides of the JFK debate?

I don't think so.

BTW, I knew DVP would avoid the question above about VB's curious treatment of the Ruby polygraph, which is why I answered it myself.

DVP does not even explain the obvious fault in his answer:if polygraphs are not useful in court, then why did VB mention the polygraph at all?

Answer, which DVP will not tell you: Because VB wants to give the impression that Ruby was being truthful in his replies, since that helps his argument.

But he then leaves out the key parts of the HSCA report which show the exam to be a deliberate fraud. And which VB has to know about , since he sources the report.

I repeat my question Dave: Did you point this out in your discussion of the book?

All this needs is a yes or no.

Edited by Jim DiEugenio, 22 August 2010 - 09:54 PM.


#13 Jim DiEugenio

Jim DiEugenio

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:58 PM

More on what VB left out of the Ruby polygraph and why DVP will not answer my question:

"Three experts reviewed the surviving relevant data on the Ruby polygraph and came up with a rather compelling analysis of Herndon's work. Although the criticism is couched in rather mild terms, the content of the report is blistering. The analysis concludes that the Ruby test violated at least ten different rules of good polygraph practice. And the violations ranged from the preparation of questions to the actual equipment used to register the reaction charts. (HSCA Vol. VIII, p. 197) One of the extraordinary aspects of the test is that Bugliosi's trusted colleague, assistant DA Bill Alexander, was in the room for all the pretest questions. (ibid p. 201) And the HSCA agreed with Herndon that this was a problem with the examination, namely that too many people were present. (ibid, pgs. 205-206) Accepted polygraph practice allows for just the examiner and the subject to be in the room. Yet in this particular test, there were eight people present during the actual examination, and ten during the pretest. (ibid, pgs. 208-209) Herndon himself made this criticism before the Commission. (ibid) The problem with this is it may create distractions that register on the test chart as a false reading. But further, the HSCA panel noted times when Herndon just lost control over the proceedings due to the ad hoc participation of the observers. (ibid, p. 210) Alexander even had off the record conversations with Ruby over the phrasing of a question. (ibid, p. 212)

Another criticism was the number of both overall questions asked—which was over a hundred—and also the number of what is termed "relevant" questions. The latter refers to actual questions involving whether the subject is truthful about the matters involved with the case. (They are usually intermingled with what is called irrelevant and control questions.) The HSCA panel believed the sheer number of these questions "showed total disregard of basic polygraph principles." (ibid p. 209) Just how bad was Herndon is this violation? The standard text in the field recommended three relevant questions in an exam. The Ruby test had fifty five (ibid p. 210)One of the panel members said that the most he had ever heard of in nearly thirty years of practice was seventeen. Here is the problem with this violation: " the more a person is tested, the less he tends to react when lying. That is ... liars become so test-tired, they no longer produce significant physiological reactions when lying." (ibid p. 209)In fact, by the fourth series, Herndon himself admitted that Ruby showed real signs of fatigue to the point of "going to pieces". (ibid, p. 212) The panel thought that Ruby's condition was not necessarily due to fatigue but caused in part by "the chaotic nature of the entire situation." (ibid)

Herndon himself called Ruby's reactions by this point "very erratic" (ibid) And this is where two more violations by the examiner surface. The panel commented that it is just because of these types of readings that good practice requires the relevant questions be asked a second time, and further, that a second test be used as a cross check. (ibid, p. 213) Especially since the test was too long, lasting a total of over five hours. (ibid, p. 217)

The panel also criticized the "control" questions used by Herndon. These are questions that the operator knows the correct answer to and to which the person will probably lie. (ibid, p. 214) This helps the examiner determine what a deception on the chart will look like. But Herndon defined a control question as one to which Ruby would have any kind of emotional response. For example: Herndon used "Have you ever been arrested?" as a control question. Ruby replied in the affirmative. Therefore that was not a lie. So how could this be used as a "control" question? It was just an emotional reply to an uncomfortable question. The panel noted four other "control" questions like this one. (ibid p. 214) One being "Are you married?" The panel thought this was an irrelevant question, one used to just acclimate the subject to the test or to get a stable response. Herndon used it as a "control" question. (ibid 214)

In other words, there was method to the madness. First, by wearing Ruby down the charted physiological responses would be less detectable. Second, by confusing the three types of questions, there would be no accurate landmarks with which to make an accurate chart. But the panel went even further."

And that last sentence about the panel going further relates to Herndon turning down the GSR setting, which VB leaves out of his book also.

In 2700 pages, VB couldn't find the space for this important information. Why?

Edited by Jim DiEugenio, 22 August 2010 - 10:00 PM.


#14 David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 22 August 2010 - 10:05 PM

Worth a replay for the hard-headed among us:

"Completely apart from the issue of how accurate a polygraph test is, most lay people, as I imagine was the case with Ruby, believe it can detect a liar. No one asked Ruby to take a polygraph test, so the argument cannot be made that he went along with it because he felt he would look guilty if he refused. It was Ruby who insisted he be given the test, and although this is not conclusive, it very definitely is circumstantial evidence of his innocence on the issue of whether he knew Oswald and whether he acted alone." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1128 of "Reclaiming History"

#15 Jim DiEugenio

Jim DiEugenio

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2010 - 10:18 PM

Davey:

You can repeat non sequitirs as long as you like.

Why won't you answer my questions?

I can answer yours: 1.) Because he knew it could not be used against him and 2.) He knew the authorities would protect him, as they did. Just look at how many people were coaching him in the room. A point that even VB admits.

Now please answer my questions.

If you don't we will know why.

You are still flacking for VB, even when his book has been exposed. The book you thought was going to spell the end to all the critical questions raised over the decades.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users