01-08-2013, 01:33 PM
I'll be glad to see how Reclaiming Parkland goes down, especially to see if VB decides to reply to it at all.
Like a lot of people outside the US I suppose, my first experience of VB was the Oswald trial held in London. I read his OJ book, Outrage, and thought of him as a sharp minded analyst and prosecutor.
When Reclaiming History came out, I wasn't surprised that he thought Oswald did it, given his "prosecution" of Oswald in London. I was, however, surprised by how he tries to argue his case. I haven't read the book, but I have read reviews at CTKA, and read snippets presented in Barry Kursch's series Impossible.
For example, to say "how you it be humanly possible to be not guilty when I've listed 53 items of evidence that prove his guilt?" Er, Vince, how about even one of those items being provably false, or even if there are multiple items proving innocence, or at least a reasonable doubt. Krusch's series seems, to me anyway, to do a great job demolishing the case.
I recently saw some YouTube clips of VB debating the OJ case and I was agog at his rhetoric. His answer to claims that the police fabricated evidence in that case seemed to boil down to "these poor cops, they serve for 20 years getting shot at - and now you have the gall to accuse them of falsifying evidence - well that's not very nice is it? How dare you?". How can an experienced lawyer resort to that sort of desperate tripe?
It makes me wonder if he really understands the evidence in his cases. Or if he believes what he shovels.
Like a lot of people outside the US I suppose, my first experience of VB was the Oswald trial held in London. I read his OJ book, Outrage, and thought of him as a sharp minded analyst and prosecutor.
When Reclaiming History came out, I wasn't surprised that he thought Oswald did it, given his "prosecution" of Oswald in London. I was, however, surprised by how he tries to argue his case. I haven't read the book, but I have read reviews at CTKA, and read snippets presented in Barry Kursch's series Impossible.
For example, to say "how you it be humanly possible to be not guilty when I've listed 53 items of evidence that prove his guilt?" Er, Vince, how about even one of those items being provably false, or even if there are multiple items proving innocence, or at least a reasonable doubt. Krusch's series seems, to me anyway, to do a great job demolishing the case.
I recently saw some YouTube clips of VB debating the OJ case and I was agog at his rhetoric. His answer to claims that the police fabricated evidence in that case seemed to boil down to "these poor cops, they serve for 20 years getting shot at - and now you have the gall to accuse them of falsifying evidence - well that's not very nice is it? How dare you?". How can an experienced lawyer resort to that sort of desperate tripe?
It makes me wonder if he really understands the evidence in his cases. Or if he believes what he shovels.