(quoting Lance Payette)
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.
And when you don't have the facts, make up some stuff that isn't true and call it a fact.
There's no evidence, solid or otherwise that "LHO had been seen with, practiced with and otherwise handled the rifle that was found at the scene of the crime", and there's no evidence that the rifle found at the scene of the crime (actually a building near the scene of the crime) was ever "determined to have fired the bullets responsible for the wounds". Those are just flat out fabrications. Not only that, but Holmes was monitoring Oswald's mail because he told the FBI about Oswald's letters to the FPCC. So the bit about the clerks not reporting the delivery is a red herring. Who claimed that they should have? Reported to whom?
As for Mytton's little "top of his head" list, every single thing on there is either false, unproven speculation, or irrelevant to the crime being discussed. Which is why this list, like Bugliosi's list, is just lawyer rhetoric. The idea is to do a data dump and try to overwhelm people with a whole bunch of claims and hope that they won't bother to refute them all individually. Then declare victory. It's also called the Gish Gallop, named for creationist Duane Gish who frequently uses the technique. When any single point is refuted, the galloper either ignores the response, just repeats the claim again, and/or makes a whole bunch of other claims without any justification. Anytime any particular claim in such a Mytton "mountain" is examined in any detail it quickly falls apart like the house of cards that it is. But then he'll whine that none of that matters because Oswald did it. So, what's really going on is that he's being a desperate prosecuting attorney, hoping to dazzle his imaginary jury with bullsh*t and hope they can't tell the difference.
