The belief that some sort of conspiracy was involved in the killing of JFK over the years has taken on the contours of religion: faith without proof. After half a century, you would expect these "researchers*" to have arrived as some sort of consensus as to who was responsible. Instead, all they've got is the classic criminal defense lawyer assertion: SODDI (some other dude did it).
The "other dudes" include but are not limited to: Secret Service agents (one riding in the follow car, another driving the limo), the mob, Castro, KGB, CIA, rogue elements in the Pentagon, Corsican drug dealers, Oswald's Russian friend George de Mohrenschildt and Lyndon Johnson, of course. As I say, there are others.
Modern investigative techniques have demolished their theories ("magic bullet," grassy knoll shooter, and Ruby killed Oswald on contract, among them) one by one 'till they're left with no evidence, only suspicion, surmise, speculation and skepticism. None of that is evidence.
None of the various scenarios would convince a grand jury to hand up an indictment let alone a petit jury to convict. These researchers* are quite comfortable with suggesting people like LBJ were responsible for "many" murders and what's one more, if the payoff was the presidency?
As Gerald Posner wrote in Case Closed one of the saddest aspects of this sad crime is that in the minds of many Americans, the man who was there, shooting on 11/22/63 has been moved to the periphery of the event. His role no longer considered or explored. SODDI. It's really shameful. Oswald killed President Kennedy. Acting alone. And there's no credible evidence to the contrary. Any competent prosecutor would have convicted Oswald at trial.
*These people are not researchers. They are looking for evidence that supports their pre-conceived view that Oswald didn't do it. And they will (and have many times) ignore evidence that points away from that view. They are propagandists.
The "other dudes" include but are not limited to: Secret Service agents (one riding in the follow car, another driving the limo), the mob, Castro, KGB, CIA, rogue elements in the Pentagon, Corsican drug dealers, Oswald's Russian friend George de Mohrenschildt and Lyndon Johnson, of course. As I say, there are others.
Modern investigative techniques have demolished their theories ("magic bullet," grassy knoll shooter, and Ruby killed Oswald on contract, among them) one by one 'till they're left with no evidence, only suspicion, surmise, speculation and skepticism. None of that is evidence.
None of the various scenarios would convince a grand jury to hand up an indictment let alone a petit jury to convict. These researchers* are quite comfortable with suggesting people like LBJ were responsible for "many" murders and what's one more, if the payoff was the presidency?
As Gerald Posner wrote in Case Closed one of the saddest aspects of this sad crime is that in the minds of many Americans, the man who was there, shooting on 11/22/63 has been moved to the periphery of the event. His role no longer considered or explored. SODDI. It's really shameful. Oswald killed President Kennedy. Acting alone. And there's no credible evidence to the contrary. Any competent prosecutor would have convicted Oswald at trial.
*These people are not researchers. They are looking for evidence that supports their pre-conceived view that Oswald didn't do it. And they will (and have many times) ignore evidence that points away from that view. They are propagandists.
Comment