Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, in his long career he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I don't believe it is.
Denis, the point is that even if Aynesworth is as pure as the driven snow, and his memory is completely infallible, this is still hearsay. It's not necessarily true.
