That Robert Oswald can disagree with significant aspects of the WC’s work and still conclude that his own brother is guilty speaks volumes about the strengths of their work. Enough said…
Touche.
That's because - as you noted that others erroneously do - he didn't look at the
totality of evidence and strip out or separate one piece from the rest and conclude from there that the entirety of the evidence can also be dismissed. If one wants to be a Mark Lane, a defender of Oswald, then that is what you do. It's a legal tactic, a strategy to persuade one gullible juror that his client was innocent. It's not about the truth. Lane wasn't interested in finding out what happened (he blamed the CIA of course); he was only interested in trying to clear Oswald.
But again, as you said, enough said.....