Lance Payette in the following post perfectly sums up how the conspiracy Kooks theorists like to view the events of this case, by as Bugliosi says splitting the already split hairs. Lance's classic example of the drunk lady who kept doing actions that when looked at in isolation could have an explanation but when the overall picture is examined her behaviour followed an unmistakable narrative.
As of January 1, I am a "retired" attorney. Before that, my private practice was as a civil litigator.
I didn't think the mission of the JFK research community was merely to see if sufficient reasonable doubt could be raised to acquit LHO. As we have seen in any number of high-profile cases, juries can be convinced that reasonable doubt exists with respect to clearly guilty defendants. A trial is, unfortunately, closer to a game show or drama than to a quest for truth. As I said long before the OJ trial, I would cheerfully flip the switch on the electric chair. He's a sociopathic killer - but voila, he's "not guilty."
A good attorney starts with a plausible theory of the case that he hopes to sell to the judge or jury. He then amasses the evidence that, to one degree or another, supports that theory. If the theory is cockamamie, as the great majority of JFK conspiracy theories are, or is flatly contradicted by the best evidence, as the great majority of JFK conspiracy theories are, the attorney's case is going nowhere. Harvey & Lee, alteration of the body between Parkland and Bethesda, etc.? Going nowhere, except perhaps in the same sense that Scientology has gone somewhere, in the form of attracting a small cadre of faithful loonies.
You have probably heard the old saying, "When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts and law are against you, scream and pound the table." This is essentially what a criminal defense attorney with a hopeless case does. It is what OJ's Dream Team did. It is what the proponents of the loony conspiracy theories do.
Another favorite tactic is to parse the evidence into ever-finer parts. This is likewise what OJ's Dream Team did. One of my few criminal experiences was a DUI case where the defense attorney asked the jury, "How many of you have driven your car over the curb? How many of you have spilled the contents of your purse, stumbled while getting out of your car, wobbled while trying to walk a straight line?" and so on and so forth through all the things the woman had been observed doing. The easy answer to that was, "How many of you have done ALL of those things on the same evening when you weren't drunk?"
Something like Harvey & Lee, which I know you do not support, starts with a cockamamie theory, ignores the mountains of contradictory evidence, and then plays an endless game of "Well, what about this ... what about this ... what about this?" OK, in a perfect world we believe that Dallas post office clerks should have been so on top of things that they would have reported to the FBI a package from Klein's Sporting Goods addressed to A. Hidell at a box owned by Lee Harvey Oswald, a former defector to the USSR who was receiving Communist literature at that box. OK, in a perfect world we believe that Holmes would have produced the post office record stub that led to the discovery of the postal money order. But the point is, the folks in 1963 had the Klein's order coupon in LHO's handwriting, the original postal money order in LHO's handwriting, the post office box application in LHO's handwriting, and solid evidence that LHO had been seen with, practiced with and otherwise handled the rifle that was found at the scene of the crime and determined to have fired the bullets responsible for the wounds. The Dallas post office clerks did not report the delivery of the rifle - sorry, too bad, but it's irrelevant. Holmes did not bring the record stub with him when he testified - sorry, too bad, but it's irrelevant. There is nothing "suspicious" about either of these non-events.
Perhaps that wasn't Holmes at all. Perhaps he was too inept to be trusted, so everything associated with Holmes was actually an FBI imposter. Did we ever see an ID? Did we, huh, huh? Why was every clerk who had worked at the Dallas post office in 1963 not interviewed by the Warren Commission? Why not, huh, huh? Why did they just take Holmes' word for anything? It's an ENDLESS and endlessly SILLY game.
Sure, the bare facts of the assassination - a widely detested President; an assassin who had worked at a U-2 base, defected to the USSR, and was enamored of Cuba; some pretty nifty shooting with a $21 rifle; the murder of the assassin himself while in police custody - scream for a close look. But when you get into the level of work that the FBI and Warren Commission did (some of which is truly mind-boggling), and then the review by the HSCA, you realize that the assassination DID receive a close look. It may be the accepted conspiracy gospel that the Warren Report was a slipshod effort, but that is simply not true, I have no problem if someone wants to keep looking, so long as it remains within the bounds of sanity. As I've said, I am not utterly opposed to the notion that LHO himself may have been the instigator of a small pro-Castro conspiracy that would have provided him with an escape route out of Dallas, or that LHO may have been a participant in a small-scale pro-Castro conspiracy. Those are within the bounds of sanity.
When your conspiracy theory is more elaborate, convoluted and multi-faceted than any conspiracy in the history of the world - and yet weirdly inept at crucial points - you have exceeded the bounds of sanity. When your conspiracy theory hinges on LHO being someone other than we know him to have been, and than everyone who knew him knew he was, you have exceeded the bounds of sanity.
Enough from me, these discussions inevitably go nowhere. One either has the conspiracy mindset, or one does not - that's my bottom-line conclusion on all the Weirdness forums on which I participate.
Lance Payette
Now using Oswald.
Oswald defected to the enemy.
Oswald attempted suicide as written in his diary.
Oswald sent a letter to Robert saying he was willing to Kill Americans who defended their Government.
Oswald made false identification in the name of Alek Hidell
Oswald bought a rifle.
Oswald was photographed with the rifle.
Oswald attempted to kill General Walker.
Oswald beat his wife.
Oswald invented "Fair Play For Cuba" and Alek Hidell was the Chapter President.
Oswald went to Mexico.
Oswald went home on an atypical Thursday.
Oswald left most of his money with his wife.
Oswald left his wedding ring in Marina's family tea cup.
Oswald carried a long package to work.
Oswald lied about the long package.
Oswald had no alibi at 12:30
Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of his work.
Oswald fled the building immediately.
Oswald frantically caught buses and taxis.
Oswald got out of the cab further down the road.
Oswald got his jacket.
Oswald killed a Police Officer.
Oswald discarded his jacket.
Oswald was seen hiding from the Police.
Oswald hid in a theater.
Oswald punched an approaching cop.
Oswald pulled the trigger of his revolver while being apprehended.
Oswald was arrested without his jacket.
Oswald in custody lied about owning the rifle.
Oswald denied being photographed with his rifle.
Oswald denied going to Mexico.
Oswald denied carrying a large package.
Oswald denied placing the large package on the back seat.
All the above was just quickly off the top of my head but how is all this explained, were these facts invented and by whom?, sure someone like Iccy will attempt to deconstruct this fraction of the Mountain of Evidence piece by piece but in the end in court when this Mountain is presented in totality, Iccy will just look like the desperate defence lawyer in Lance's story.
JohnM
