Do LNs fret about the possibility their conclusions shield complicit parties?

[John Iacoletti]

Given the significant passage of time, almost everyone associated with this case is dead or soon will be.  That would certainly be the case if they were directly involved in the assassination given the CTer claims of roving death squads who killed even those with minor information about the case.

Strawman Smith strikes again.

  So it is no longer a matter of justice to punish the guilty in a trial but one of historical interest to better understand the details of what has happened.  That is governed by the totality of evidence in the case.  That evidence lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  There is no doubt of this beyond fringe individuals such as those who haunt forums like these making a lot of noise.

...and he thinks that stating his opinion over and over again somehow makes it true.

Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history.  And round and round we will go.

And you have yet to actually provide any that doesn't crumble under the slightest scrutiny.  You just keep restating your conclusions as if that means anything.

[John Iacoletti]

Does the conspiracy crowd accept this? Of course not. Caro is corrupt or he's incompetent. Or both. Even though you know and I know they haven't read his work. Could he be wrong? Of course. But those saying he's wrong have to show us. But they don't. Actually, they can't. Because, for them, LBJ just did it. No proof is needed.

The only people I've seen questioning Caro's work on this forum are your fellow LNers -- in the thread about whether JFK was going to drop LBJ in '64.

Anytime somebody starts claiming what the "conspiracy crowd" thinks, you can bet a strawman is soon to follow.  Why don't you guys ever argue against what actual people write in the actual forum rather than caricatures of your own creation?