Lance Can Seal the Deal

[James DiEugenio]

Lancie, instead of the Glaze letters and the sling, let us imagine you have been appointed prosecutor in a mock trial of Oswald, after the ARRB closed its doors.  In an extraordinary grant of transparency Bill Clinton, advised by Al Gore, has allowed you to use the original exhibits at NARA, where the mock trial will be held.  He wants to bolster trust in government and so the trial is nationally televised. And there is discovery involved and pre trial motions to make it a real trial not the Bugliosi/Spence sideshow.

JIm Lesar is the  defense lawyer.  He knows the evidence, therefore at a pre trial evidentiary hearing he challenges the following exhibits on the following grounds.

1. CE 399:  1.) the Bardwell Odum documents have now been undermined by Gary Aguilar and TInk Thompson, since they have Odum denying he did what he did to certify the exhibit. In other words the FBI lied.  2.) The work of John Hunt in digging up documents which show that CE 399 was at the FBI lab BEFORE it got to the FBI courier. Further that the FBI lied again by saying Elmer Lee Todd's initials are on the bullet when they are not on the bullet. 

Please explain how you could establish a chain to get CE 399 into evidence, and how the judge could possibly trust you in the face of the FBI lying about it?

2.) The shell evidence:  Tom Alyea testifies that, as the first civilian on the sixth floor, that cartridge arrangement in the photos was not what he saw.  They were in a hand towel span of each other which the FBI proved was not possible when they tested the rifle ejection dispersal pattern. Also, Lesar presents the documents and pictures showing there were only two shells found, not three.  Howard Donahue, TInk Thompson and Chris Mills testify that the third shell, the one with the indented lip, cannot be so indented unless its dry loaded.  Very bad for your case.

3.). The rifle: How could you prove that the coupon could be sent to Chicago, delivered to Klein's and deposited in their accounts in less than 24 hours?   Would you do an experiment?  I have news for you, it would lose your case.  How could you prove Oswald had the rifle in his possession? Who would you get from the post office who said they presented it to him? (Harry Holmes would blow up in your face on cross examination.). How could you explain the differing names on the coupon and the post office box?  Since Lesar would bring in the postmaster general to read the guidelines and explain why the package would have been turned back in 1963. How could you explain Marina Oswald telling the Secret Service after she was in sequester a few days that she never saw a scoped rifle in her life?  And how could you use her as a witness in the nineties?

4.) The prints:  explain how that evidence would survive with Sebastian La Tona's testimony?  And how would Day do when confronted with Drain? And please do not use Rusty Livingstone and PBS in 1993.  Pat Speer has demolished that with completeness.  Producer Mike Sullivan lied.

5.) The autopsy report:  How could you use this when Humes admitted he destroyed the notes and his first draft and Finck's notes were stolen? What would happen when the judge heard that this is probably the third draft of the report? Further, how could Humes survive the savaging he would get showing how the X rays differ from his report in very relevant ways? Like no trail going from the EOP area to the upper level of the skull. Like him not describing the 6.5 mm fragment.  

6.). The autopsy photos:  How could you get the  xrays and pictures of the brain into evidence if John Stringer would be Lesar's witness saying that those are not his photos since he did not use that type of film or the press pak technique?  How would you constitute a chain of evidence on the photos with no name or ID numbers on a card ?  Especially  when Lesar called Madona and Spencer to the stand? 

7.) How could you establish Oswald on the sixth floor with Styles, Adams, and Garner testifying against it.  And Lesar showing how the WC suppressed Garner's probative testimony. 

You want to talk about holsters?  Let your ego feast itself on the core evidence in the case.  Evidence you would have to get in  or you would not have a case. After looking at this Jeremy Gunn, the ARRB chief Counsel said: I would much rather be defending Oswald than prosecuting him. He said this in public during a speech at Stanford.

BTW Lancie, I am glad you admitted the stuff about coming back for your avatar was not true.  And no there was no saliva on the type keys as I wrote the above.  its all in my last book so I know it by rote.

I await your trial brief reply.  Please respond in detail as you would before a judge.

Edited April 28, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Seven hours and no reply Lance?

I'm getting tired waiting for you.

I will now go to sleep.  Knowing that when I awake you will have a full trial answer  to Lesar's motion to dismiss that will set us all straight on the chain of custody issues, and the viability of the core evidence. 

Nighty nite Lancie.

[Guest]

• I came here this evening only to send a PM to Tracy Parnell about the entirely bogus James B. Wilcott, who would be an easy target for mirthful factoid-busting if Tracy hadn’t already done such an excellent job at his site. When I see my name taken in vain in the title of a thread, however, I feel some obligation to respond. Sorry you had to wait a few hours; I actually have a life.
   
• Over a period of years, I have asked, very clearly and pointedly, for my account here to be deleted. For whatever reason, the administrators have decided to leave it active. Maybe they love me. I hadn’t visited this site for about six months when I checked in last week to see if my account had in fact been deleted. It hadn’t. I came back a day or so later to at least delete my avatar so my face wouldn’t be all over the internet. I saw your thread about Wheaton’s article, read the latter, and immediately realized it was Little League conspiracy silliness. Alas, I couldn’t resist pointing out the absurdities. I’m still chuckling over Bill Shelley, CIA counterintelligence operative.
   
• I started my thread about the rifle sling only because, upon encountering Bill Kelly’s blog entries the night before, I quickly realized I was once again in the presence of Little League conspiracy silliness. Since the piece had already pretty much written itself by the time I’d completed my two hours of research, I went ahead and posted it.
   
• Whether you choose to believe 1-3 above is utterly irrelevant to me. Why you would care why I’m here or not here is a mystery to me. Why you persist in calling a 70-year-old man “Lancie” and apparently find it humorous is likewise a mystery; I believe it says more about you than me. Anyway, I’ll come and go as I choose, change my mind as I wish, and will always find enjoyment in the degree to which it so obviously rankles you. Admit it, without DVP and me (not that I’m in DVP’s league) this place has become a moribund Dullsville. The new Bob Dylan song? Yeah, let’s masturbate over that for eight threads and 400 posts.
   
• Since the coronavirus lockdown, I’ve been on a veritable JFK binge. I decided to read or reread vast swaths of the literature, including much of the best conspiracy literature from 1967 to date, to see if anything gave me pause about my view that Oswald acted alone. Nothing really did. I don’t care whether he acted alone; I simply believe this is where the totality of the evidence points.
   
• I don’t intend to participate here regularly, if at all, simply because it’s a waste of my time. I truly believe conspiracy mania is a psychological affliction – a disease, an addiction. (Lone Nut mania may be as well, but I most assuredly don’t suffer from it and find it as big a mystery as conspiracy mania – maybe even more so, because I don’t understand why anyone would have an emotional investment in the Lone Nut position.) I don’t waste my time visiting asylums trying to talk people out of the belief that they are Napoleon, either.
   
• The trouble with “things being in [your] last book” is that you’re a one-dimensional conspiracy zealot who is peddling his wares to true believers. You work is sloppy and riddled with errors; sorry, but it is. Like every conspiracy salesman, especially those attempting to make a living out of it, you simply cherry-pick every conspiracy-oriented factoid, no matter how bogus, garnish it with dark speculation and innuendo, and call it a theory. Because those in the grip of conspiracy mania have the critical-thinking skills of turnips, the folks here lap it up. As we can see from the Wheaton piece, I don’t believe you even care about the accuracy or absurdity of what you write or endorse. You’re on some sort of weird quasi-religious crusade.
   
• I’m fully informed about every “problem area” of the case. There are indeed aspects that are problematical and some that seem almost incredible. What you fail to realize is that these are the hallmarks of the truth. Every lawyer knows that with a case of any complexity, there are loose ends, evidence that doesn’t seem to fit, bizarre coincidences, lying witnesses, mistaken witnesses, crackpots and all the rest. If there aren’t, something is very wrong. In a conspiracy to assassinate the President, “problems” like CE 399, Humes’ destruction of his notes, et al., would never have seen the light of day. That they have seen the light of day, and have provided fodder for 50+ years of conspiracy salesmen peddling at least 25 diametrically opposed theories, cuts in absolutely the opposite direction from what you suggest.
   
• To repeat: I am well-aware of all the problem areas. I now know far more about the assassination than the average participant on forums such as this. I also have the analytical and critical-thinking skills of a lawyer of 36 years. I have given all the problem areas due consideration. I nonetheless believe to a 95% degree of certainty that Oswald acted alone. I reserve 5% for the possibility that he was engaged in what might technically qualify as a conspiracy with some other pro-Castro type – an itsy bitsy mini-conspiracy, if you will. I believe there is a 0% chance of any of the myriad of mega-conspiracy theories being true. Your mileage may vary, and whether it does is utterly irrelevant to me.
   
• Conspiracy salesmen and their minions consistently confuse “reality” with “what can be proved in a trial.” Many of my friends have been criminal defense attorneys. They specifically do not even want to know whether their clients are actually guilty of the crimes with which they’ve been charged. The objective in a criminal trial, and especially from the defense perspective, is not the truth. The objective from the defense perspective is to sow doubt – about everyone and everything. That’s how you win. It makes no difference how scurrilous, false or absurd the doubt you sow may be or how low you may have to stoop to sow it. The conspiracy community is basically the Oswald criminal defense community, which I find inexplicably bizarre.
   
• Conspiracy salesmen who pose challenges such as yours always overlook that 95% of their “evidence” would likewise never see the light of day in a criminal trial because it consists of raw speculation, second- and third-hand hearsay, unreasonable inferences and non-expert “experts.” I think you would be very, very, very surprised at what an actual criminal trial of Oswald – not some silly mock trial - would have looked like.
   
• Might Oswald have been found not guilty? Sure. I believe that is highly unlikely, but it’s certainly possible. O.J. was found not guilty, but I’d cheerfully flip the switch on the electric chair because in the real world he committed two brutal murders. Again, you confuse “reality” with “what can be proved in a criminal trial.” "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent," not by a long shot. The reality, as established by the totality of the evidence, is that Oswald acted alone. Whether a jury could be convinced of that beyond a reasonable doubt is irrelevant and moot, except in Conspiracy World. The real-world question is “What does the totality of the evidence show?” – not “How much doubt can we sow if we play the Mark Lane Game for 50+ years?”
   
• I honestly don’t even understand the point of your thread here, but I decline to play your game. See points 6 and 7 above. Why don’t we try a narrower task: I have pretty well skewered your esteemed brethren Bill Kelly and Bill Simpich in my rifle sling thread. I have presented the prosecution case. Why don’t you play defense attorney and attempt to deal with the substance of what I’ve posted? Sure, it’s a minor issue that I found fascinating only because BK tried to make so much out of it – so surely you should be up to demonstrating that your conspiracy colleagues haven’t got egg all over their faces.
   
• Lovely chatting with you.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Guest

[James DiEugenio]

Just as I thought.  Lancie  did his usual salsa dance around the evidence that he knew he could not get in if he tried.

The whole issue of chain of custody in the law is simple to comprehend.  It is done for two reasons: to demonstrate that the evidence first picked up at the crime scene, was then treated with trustworthiness by the police and the DA.  That is, one can follow the trail from officer to station to evidence room to testing back to evidence room. Therefore, each person in the chain is accounted for and each person swears he did not do anything to the exhibit.   The second reason  we have chain of custody is to be sure that the exhibit that was picked up at the scene is the same exhibit that the DA produces in court. The last thing a DA wants is for a piece of evidence to blow up in his face.  Because that is really one of the worst things that can happen to the prosecution.

Lance wants to avoid this issue.  And he does.  He could not in court. Which is why he did not answer the question.

My books are abundantly footnoted.  There are 2000 footnotes in Destiny Betrayed and about 1800 in The JFK Case: The Evidence Today.  Between the interviews I did and the evidence I consulted, the majority of references are to primary sources in  regard  to the crime scene, CE 399, the autopsy. I don't see how one gets more primary than x rays, pictures, interviews of people like Humes, and Finck, FBI reports, and the witnesses who took the pictures and handed over the evidence to people who then filed it. Therefore if those are wrong its because the evidence is dubious.  Again, he does not want to admit this.

This is  the second time he has brought up the Simpson case.  Again, that  does a salsa dance around the question.  My question was about a pre trial evidentiary  hearing.  Not even a preliminary hearing, which is different.  They have these evidentiary hearings in every state, in California they are called 402 hearings.  I am sure they have them in Arizona.  My question was how he could get these pieces of evidence admitted by a judge into a criminal case. When Lesar asked Specter this question back in 2003 at Duquesne, Specter fumbled and mumbled and demanded more time to reply.  He then left the stage prematurely. Lance would have done the same. 

If you cannot get the core evidence admitted to trial, you do not have a case. This is why when Shaw's lawyers wanted to get the Warren Report admitted as evidence the judge giggled at them and turned down the motion.

I have no idea what he is talking about with "conspiracy salesmen could not get their evidence admitted into court". Lance, are you losing it?  You are the prosecution.  Its your case you have to get admitted or there is no charge.  Which means there is no trial. Understand?

The idea that somehow issues like CE 399 and Humes' notes would not see the light of day in a perfect conspiracy, that is mere gibberish.  Lance: Oswald was murdered on national television.  There was no trial and therefore there was no forensic testing of the case.  Understand? Which meant you had a rogue prosecution.  Anything got admitted. Which, incredibly,  you have no complaint about. This would not have happened in a real trial, which is my whole point.  The adversary system is what we have in this country. Cross examination is the engine of justice.  Look at what happened at the Shaw trial with FInck. The truth began to emerge about the autopsy.  Now look at Specter's examination and tell me you don't see the difference?  Please Lance. 

You are selling a false narrative that you preserve by avoiding anything that disturbs your phony Oswald did it scenario.  And please get your story straight as to why you are here. First you say its your avatar.  But then you say you cannot help yourself out of ego.  Well as I said, your ego would not be served in this case.

I am all fine with approving Lance's request to delete  his account if he really made it. Did he Kathy?

Edited April 29, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Dave Curbow]

Mr.DiEugenio,

please reconsider Mr. Payette's request and engage him in an exchange over the evidence.

This opportunity to examine what both sides can bring to the table is why I have frequented forums for the past twenty plus years.

An exchange between two sides of the debate from informed and intelligent points of view would be a gift to the interested community.

Thank you! I am counting on you.

Dave

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Dave Curbow said:

Mr.DiEugenio,

please reconsider Mr. Payette's request and engage him in an exchange over the evidence.

This opportunity to examine what both sides can bring to the table is why I have frequented forums for the past twenty plus years.

An exchange between two sides of the debate from informed and intelligent points of view would be a gift to the interested community.

Thank you! I am counting on you.

Dave

Jeeeeeeeeezzzzzzz.

[James DiEugenio]

Mr. Curbow:

Did I miss something?  Where did Lance say he was going to engage me on the evidence I pointed out as being core to the case?

I brought up seven points that I told him to reply to as he would be prosecuting Oswald in court and Lesar had made a motion to dismiss based on chain of custody issues.

He did not want to go into that.  if he does, I will be glad to reply.

Edited April 29, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Cory Santos]

The problem is you two are talking different languages.   Lets try this.   Lance do you concede that there are breaks in the chain of custody regarding the evidence Jim posted above?   If you think there are no breaks in the custody or issues with this evidence, please cite your reasons using evidence. 

Jim do you concede that even if you prove an issue with the evidence chain, that this does not mean Oswald acted alone or did not do it?   Do you concede it just means it would have been at most inadmissible in court?

Lets start there.

  

[Kishan Dandiker]

10 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

• I came here this evening only to send a PM to Tracy Parnell about the entirely bogus James B. Wilcott, who would be an easy target for mirthful factoid-busting if Tracy hadn’t already done such an excellent job at his site. When I see my name taken in vain in the title of a thread, however, I feel some obligation to respond. Sorry you had to wait a few hours; I actually have a life.
   
• Over a period of years, I have asked, very clearly and pointedly, for my account here to be deleted. For whatever reason, the administrators have decided to leave it active. Maybe they love me. I hadn’t visited this site for about six months when I checked in last week to see if my account had in fact been deleted. It hadn’t. I came back a day or so later to at least delete my avatar so my face wouldn’t be all over the internet. I saw your thread about Wheaton’s article, read the latter, and immediately realized it was Little League conspiracy silliness. Alas, I couldn’t resist pointing out the absurdities. I’m still chuckling over Bill Shelley, CIA counterintelligence operative.
   
• I started my thread about the rifle sling only because, upon encountering Bill Kelly’s blog entries the night before, I quickly realized I was once again in the presence of Little League conspiracy silliness. Since the piece had already pretty much written itself by the time I’d completed my two hours of research, I went ahead and posted it.
   
• Whether you choose to believe 1-3 above is utterly irrelevant to me. Why you would care why I’m here or not here is a mystery to me. Why you persist in calling a 70-year-old man “Lancie” and apparently find it humorous is likewise a mystery; I believe it says more about you than me. Anyway, I’ll come and go as I choose, change my mind as I wish, and will always find enjoyment in the degree to which it so obviously rankles you. Admit it, without DVP and me (not that I’m in DVP’s league) this place has become a moribund Dullsville. The new Bob Dylan song? Yeah, let’s masturbate over that for eight threads and 400 posts.
   
• Since the coronavirus lockdown, I’ve been on a veritable JFK binge. I decided to read or reread vast swaths of the literature, including much of the best conspiracy literature from 1967 to date, to see if anything gave me pause about my view that Oswald acted alone. Nothing really did. I don’t care whether he acted alone; I simply believe this is where the totality of the evidence points.
   
• I don’t intend to participate here regularly, if at all, simply because it’s a waste of my time. I truly believe conspiracy mania is a psychological affliction – a disease, an addiction. (Lone Nut mania may be as well, but I most assuredly don’t suffer from it and find it as big a mystery as conspiracy mania – maybe even more so, because I don’t understand why anyone would have an emotional investment in the Lone Nut position.) I don’t waste my time visiting asylums trying to talk people out of the belief that they are Napoleon, either.
   
• The trouble with “things being in [your] last book” is that you’re a one-dimensional conspiracy zealot who is peddling his wares to true believers. You work is sloppy and riddled with errors; sorry, but it is. Like every conspiracy salesman, especially those attempting to make a living out of it, you simply cherry-pick every conspiracy-oriented factoid, no matter how bogus, garnish it with dark speculation and innuendo, and call it a theory. Because those in the grip of conspiracy mania have the critical-thinking skills of turnips, the folks here lap it up. As we can see from the Wheaton piece, I don’t believe you even care about the accuracy or absurdity of what you write or endorse. You’re on some sort of weird quasi-religious crusade.
   
• I’m fully informed about every “problem area” of the case. There are indeed aspects that are problematical and some that seem almost incredible. What you fail to realize is that these are the hallmarks of the truth. Every lawyer knows that with a case of any complexity, there are loose ends, evidence that doesn’t seem to fit, bizarre coincidences, lying witnesses, mistaken witnesses, crackpots and all the rest. If there aren’t, something is very wrong. In a conspiracy to assassinate the President, “problems” like CE 399, Humes’ destruction of his notes, et al., would never have seen the light of day. That they have seen the light of day, and have provided fodder for 50+ years of conspiracy salesmen peddling at least 25 diametrically opposed theories, cuts in absolutely the opposite direction from what you suggest.
   
• To repeat: I am well-aware of all the problem areas. I now know far more about the assassination than the average participant on forums such as this. I also have the analytical and critical-thinking skills of a lawyer of 36 years. I have given all the problem areas due consideration. I nonetheless believe to a 95% degree of certainty that Oswald acted alone. I reserve 5% for the possibility that he was engaged in what might technically qualify as a conspiracy with some other pro-Castro type – an itsy bitsy mini-conspiracy, if you will. I believe there is a 0% chance of any of the myriad of mega-conspiracy theories being true. Your mileage may vary, and whether it does is utterly irrelevant to me.
   
• Conspiracy salesmen and their minions consistently confuse “reality” with “what can be proved in a trial.” Many of my friends have been criminal defense attorneys. They specifically do not even want to know whether their clients are actually guilty of the crimes with which they’ve been charged. The objective in a criminal trial, and especially from the defense perspective, is not the truth. The objective from the defense perspective is to sow doubt – about everyone and everything. That’s how you win. It makes no difference how scurrilous, false or absurd the doubt you sow may be or how low you may have to stoop to sow it. The conspiracy community is basically the Oswald criminal defense community, which I find inexplicably bizarre.
   
• Conspiracy salesmen who pose challenges such as yours always overlook that 95% of their “evidence” would likewise never see the light of day in a criminal trial because it consists of raw speculation, second- and third-hand hearsay, unreasonable inferences and non-expert “experts.” I think you would be very, very, very surprised at what an actual criminal trial of Oswald – not some silly mock trial - would have looked like.
   
• Might Oswald have been found not guilty? Sure. I believe that is highly unlikely, but it’s certainly possible. O.J. was found not guilty, but I’d cheerfully flip the switch on the electric chair because in the real world he committed two brutal murders. Again, you confuse “reality” with “what can be proved in a criminal trial.” "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent," not by a long shot. The reality, as established by the totality of the evidence, is that Oswald acted alone. Whether a jury could be convinced of that beyond a reasonable doubt is irrelevant and moot, except in Conspiracy World. The real-world question is “What does the totality of the evidence show?” – not “How much doubt can we sow if we play the Mark Lane Game for 50+ years?”
   
• I honestly don’t even understand the point of your thread here, but I decline to play your game. See points 6 and 7 above. Why don’t we try a narrower task: I have pretty well skewered your esteemed brethren Bill Kelly and Bill Simpich in my rifle sling thread. I have presented the prosecution case. Why don’t you play defense attorney and attempt to deal with the substance of what I’ve posted? Sure, it’s a minor issue that I found fascinating only because BK tried to make so much out of it – so surely you should be up to demonstrating that your conspiracy colleagues haven’t got egg all over their faces.
   
• Lovely chatting with you.

‘Over a period of years, I have asked, very clearly and pointedly, for my account here to be deleted.‘

Yet you state in the same paragraph that you came back to ‘check’. If you really wanted to you could stay away, but you don’t. Says it all.

[Ray Mitcham]

If Lance is such a good lawyer, let's see his reply to Jim's statements.  I won't hold my breath.

[Guest]

Please permanently delete my account

 1 member active in this conversation (including you)

1. 
   Kathy Beckett
   Left conversation
2. Lance Payette
   Read: Just now
3.  

 

• Report reply

Lance Payette

Started conversation: October 11, 2019

As a follow-up to the thread I just started ("Isn't this the reality?  Isn't this the solution?"), which I posted in all sincerity, I ask that you please permanently delete my account at your earliest convenience.  I asked James Gordon to do this a view years ago, but at that time he graciously deactivated it instead.  This time, I ask that you permanently delete it.  Thanks very much, and good luck with the site.

 

 

KATHY IS MORE THAN WELCOME TO DELETE IT NOW. IF SHE DOESN'T, OR SHE CAN'T FOR SOME REASON, I WILL BE ENGAGING IN NO FURTHER DISCUSSION OR DEBATE WITH YOU FOLKS FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE. I BELIEVE YOU ARE IN THE GRIP OF A MANIA THAT RENDERS COMMON SENSE AND CRITICAL THINKING IMPOSSIBLE. I BELIEVE YOU ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY ILL. IF I AM STILL ABLE TO POST AND CHOOSE TO DO SO, IT WILL BE ONLY IN THE FACTOID-BUSTING VEIN AND I WILL NOT BE READING YOUR RESPONSES.

 

LOVELY CHATTING WITH YOU.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

The problem is you two are talking different languages.   Lets try this.   Lance do you concede that there are breaks in the chain of custody regarding the evidence Jim posted above?   If you think there are no breaks in the custody or issues with this evidence, please cite your reasons using evidence. 

Jim do you concede that even if you prove an issue with the evidence chain, that this does not mean Oswald acted alone or did not do it?   Do you concede it just means it would have been at most inadmissible in court?

Lets start there.

  

Cory, your post answers your own question, and my post above certainly did so. As I clearly stated, some of the evidence is indeed "problematical," both in technical legal terms and in real-world terms. Some of it, perhaps even critical items, may well not have been admitted at a trial.

"Admissibility" at this point is irrelevant because there is never going to be a trial. The Oswald "defense bar" does not seem to grasp the fundamental fact that "admissibility" at this point means nothing. Zero, nada, zilch. The only question is, does the totality of the evidence establish that Oswald alone assassinated JFK?

In answering that question, any and all pertinent evidence must be considered without regard to whether it would have been inadmissible at a trial - hearsay, tangible evidence for which there may be chain-of-custody problems, all of it. That's how we make decisions in the real-world - all day every day.

Every lawyer has lost a case where both sides knew pretty damn well what had happened, but the Rules of Evidence kept out critical testimony or evidence; it's just the nature of the trial game. My position is not based on any faith in the WC or HSCA or any other panel, except as they may be sources of information for me in reaching my own conclusions.

Mark Lane, in one of the few things he ever did that reflected favorably upon him, made no secret that Rush to Judgment was a defense brief for Oswald (pretty much without regard to accuracy or truth, but we'll let that slide) and that his entire career was pretty much devoted to giving Oswald the trial defense he never had. Lane at least understood what he was doing.

The dolts here, alas, do not even understand what they are doing. They believe that by sowing 50+ years of "defense lawyer doubt" they can somehow establish that Oswald was not the Lone Assassin in the real world of November 22, 1963. They cannot establish anything except the possibility that Oswald, like OJ, might have been found not guilty in a criminal trial. (I believe the verdict would have been "guiltier than hell," but we'll let that slide too because it's irrelevant.)

The only relevant question for the Oswald "defense bar" is whether they can sow legitimate doubt about what happened in the real world on November 22, 1963. Weird speculation about Oswald's rifle sling or why Humes admittedly destroyed notes will not get them there. No amount of dark speculation, innuendo, unreasonable inferences or reliance on obvious crackpot "witnesses" will get them there. No amount of it, not even a 57-year pile.

Some items of evidence do, I believe, raise legitimate doubt. For some, like CE399, the explanation that squares with the Lone Nut explanation seems facially implausible. But I have found, across the entire spectrum of evidence, that none of the "superficially implausible" explanations is impossible or demands that the Lone Nut explanation be rejected. When those non-impossible explanations are factored into the totality of the evidence, specifically including the real Lee Harvey Oswald whom every conspiracy theorist wants to reinvent, the Lone Nut explanation is by far the solidest.

I GUARANTEE YOU: Neither Jim nor his embarrassingly mindless sycophants are going to provide you with any explanation as rational as THAT. They can't, because Conspiracy World is a fundamentally irrational realm.

[Cliff Varnell]

Great novel...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Goodbye_(novel)

[Steve Roe]

7 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

The only relevant question for the Oswald "defense bar" is whether they can sow legitimate doubt about what happened in the real world on November 22, 1963. Weird speculation about Oswald's rifle sling or why Humes admittedly destroyed notes will not get them there. No amount of dark speculation, innuendo, unreasonable inferences or reliance on obvious crackpot "witnesses" will get them there. No amount of it, not even a 57-year pile.

Some items of evidence do, I believe, raise legitimate doubt. For some, like CE399, the explanation that squares with the Lone Nut explanation seems facially implausible. But I have found, across the entire spectrum of evidence, that none of the "superficially implausible" explanations is impossible or demands that the Lone Nut explanation be rejected. When those non-impossible explanations are factored into the totality of the evidence, specifically including the real Lee Harvey Oswald whom every conspiracy theorist wants to reinvent, the Lone Nut explanation is by far the solidest.

I GUARANTEE YOU: Neither Jim nor his embarrassingly mindless sycophants are going to provide you with any explanation as rational as THAT. They can't, because Conspiracy World is a fundamentally irrational realm.

Lance, 

Thanks for your efforts in trying to establish some good old common sense.

Of course it will not be well received, but who cares? 

I hate to see you leave, but fully understand your frustration with conspiracy minded folks here. Your research on the Money Order "Record Locator" was excellent and much appreciated. Funny that never gets mentioned again, huh?  

As you get another drumming here for speaking rational truth, just remember some of us here appreciate your input and commentary.

[Cliff Varnell]

Ahhh...t-r-o-l-l love! So cute!