Oliver's Stone's Poverty of Imagination

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-s-poverty-of-imagination

I watched his so-called documentary on the weekend. Yup, great cinematography, and great editing. But the content was just a bunch of soundbites with no coherent view of the evidence. And while the film bemoans that Lee Harvey Oswald did not receive a trial, it also presents a lot of hearsay evidence that would also have been excluded. Here is my initial take on the film.

Fred Litwin

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Good review. Anyone familiar with Jim D's website will have a good idea of the type of thing that is in the film.

[Richard Smith]

I haven't watched it, but it sounds like the same tired rehash of basic CTer 101 in the JFK assassination.  Even had there been a LHO trial, the very best that could have resulted from a CTer perspective is that Oswald was found not guilty.  Such a verdict, however, would not preclude his being guilty or somehow prove a conspiracy.  It would simply mean that a jury found reasonable doubt.  Much more likely, however, is that a 1964 Dallas jury would have convicted Oswald in about two seconds based on the overwhelming evidence against him.  To save his own skin, Oswald might even have plead guilty in return for filling in the historical record relating to the events of the assassination similar to James Earl Ray.  After a few years in prison, Oswald would then have cultivated the CTer crowd by hinting at the involvement of others to garner attention and sympathy for himself.  So no clarity would have ever come from Oswald himself or a trial. 

It's ultimately the evidence that controls these determinations.  In the case of the Lincoln assassination, there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy.  In the JFK assassination, there is no such evidence.  Absent something new coming to light, which seems unlikely after nearly six decades, the only reasonable conclusion is that LHO assassinated JFK and there was no conspiracy in the commission of this crime.

[Jon Banks]

The first hour of the movie mostly sticks to the documented evidence that has been brought to light since the ARRB. The second hour does dive more into areas of speculation and heresay but I don't think it was over the top.

Discussion of Oswald specifically accounts for maybe 1/4 of the 2 hour film. At least 50% of the film focuses on the rifle, ballistics, and medical evidence while the last 30 minutes or so of the film gets into "why" JFK was hated or viewed as a threat by some in the national security community. Clearly, Stone still believes Kennedy was killed by the "Deep State".

I'm interested in hearing your views on the inconsistencies in the Medical/Autopsy evidence. The contradictions between the Parkland doctors and JFK's autopsy doctors have been well documented and were covered in depth in the film.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Much more likely, however, is that a 1964 Dallas jury would have convicted Oswald in about two seconds based on the overwhelming evidence against him.  To save his own skin, Oswald might even have plead guilty in return for filling in the historical record relating to the events of the assassination similar to James Earl Ray.  After a few years in prison, Oswald would then have cultivated the CTer crowd by hinting at the involvement of others to garner attention and sympathy for himself.  So no clarity would have ever come from Oswald himself or a trial. 

I think that is exactly what would have happened.

[Jon Banks]

I haven't watched it, but it sounds like the same tired rehash of basic CTer 101 in the JFK assassination.  Even had there been a LHO trial, the very best that could have resulted from a CTer perspective is that Oswald was found not guilty.  Such a verdict, however, would not preclude his being guilty or somehow prove a conspiracy.  It would simply mean that a jury found reasonable doubt.  Much more likely, however, is that a 1964 Dallas jury would have convicted Oswald in about two seconds based on the overwhelming evidence against him.  To save his own skin, Oswald might even have plead guilty in return for filling in the historical record relating to the events of the assassination similar to James Earl Ray.  After a few years in prison, Oswald would then have cultivated the CTer crowd by hinting at the involvement of others to garner attention and sympathy for himself.  So no clarity would have ever come from Oswald himself or a trial. 

It's ultimately the evidence that controls these determinations.  In the case of the Lincoln assassination, there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy.  In the JFK assassination, there is no such evidence.  Absent something new coming to light, which seems unlikely after nearly six decades, the only reasonable conclusion is that LHO assassinated JFK and there was no conspiracy in the commission of this crime.

The reason some argue that he wouldn't have been convicted is because some of the evidence wouldn't have been permissible in court either because of Broken Chain of Custody, or the inability of the investigators to explain some of the inconsistencies in the evidence under oath.

You could be 100% right that there was 'no conspiracy' but you won't persuade folks who are convinced there was a conspiracy until the problems and inconsistencies with the evidence are addressed and resolved.

And I'm not talking about heresay, I'm talking about the well documented and unresolved questions about the evidence. Can we conclusively say based on the evidence at this point that "only three shots" were fired at Kennedy and that all shots came from the Book Depository? I don't think so.

[Richard Smith]

The reason some argue that he wouldn't have been convicted is because some of the evidence wouldn't have been permissible in court either because of Broken Chain of Custody, or the inability of the investigators to explain some of the inconsistencies in the evidence under oath.

You could be 100% right that there was 'no conspiracy' but you won't persuade folks who are convinced there was a conspiracy until the problems and inconsistencies with the evidence are addressed and resolved.

And I'm not talking about heresay, I'm talking about the well documented and unresolved questions about the evidence. Can we conclusively say based on the evidence at this point that "only three shots" were fired at Kennedy and that all shots came from the Book Depository? I don't think so.

I don't see any real problems with the evidence.  Mostly pedantic nitpicking by CTers to raise any doubt.  Even if some of the evidence could have been excluded from a criminal trial based on a problem with chain of custody it is still evidence for us to consider in an historical context.  Defense attorney tactics designed to raise doubt by any means are not compelling outside the context of a trial.  The presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor along with fired bullet casings from that rifle are enough to convict.  Oswald had no alibi or plausible explanation for his rifle being there or the bullet casings.  He was seen carrying a long package to work that morning.  He lied about that.  His prints are on the SN boxes and bag.   He fled the scene and was involved in another murder less than an hour later. That's a very compelling case against him.  If there was anything the witnesses could agree on, it's that three or fewer shots were fired.  Something like over 90% confirmed that.  Although some disagreed on the location from which they believed the shots were fired, almost none or maybe none at all indicated that the shots were fired from two different locations.  So near unanimity on one shooter firing two or three shots.     

[Jon Banks]

I don't see any real problems with the evidence. 

Overlooking huge problems with the evidence seems to be a requirement for the LN'ers.