J. D. Tippit: Was he part of the conspiracy?

[Duke Lane]

I can tell you didn't used to (or don't) ride a lot of busses, Ray!

Everyone pays the same amount getting aboard. That amount entitles them to travel within a certain zone, or perimeter. When you cross over into a farther zone - usually determined by its distance from the center of the main city - the fare goes up and you pay the difference when you get off the bus or, if the driver's so inclined to stop and collect, when you cross over into the new zone. Usually, the next zone was only an increment of the original fare (e.g., 35¢ original fare, 10¢ into the next).

Generally speaking, though, within the main city, you could travel on one route (bus) from the farthest reaches in one direction to the farthest reaches in the other without paying an additional fare, and could also travel from the farthest reaches of one route, transfer to another route, and travel to the farthest reaches of it.

Maybe Ball knew that. It might have closed the question more securely by asking it, but when you consider it was only a three-mile bus ride, why would anyone expect to have to pay an additional fare? It wasn't a cab, after all! Where I grew up, the next zone didn't start until you were more than 10 miles out of downtown!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Everyone pays the same amount getting aboard.

That question had been bothering me for a long time. Thank you Duke.

I can tell you didn't used to (or don't) ride a lot of busses, Ray!

Quite right. I travel everywhere by chauffered limousine.

Edited December 6, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Duke Lane]

I can tell you didn't used to (or don't) ride a lot of busses, Ray!

Quite right. I travel everywhere by chauffered limousine.

As I'd've suspected from a member of the Trilateral Commission. Haven't you told everyone about that, Ray? Oh, Jimmy and Zbig say hi, kisses and so on!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I can tell you didn't used to (or don't) ride a lot of busses, Ray!

Quite right. I travel everywhere by chauffered limousine.

As I'd've suspected from a member of the Trilateral Commission. Haven't you told everyone about that, Ray? Oh, Jimmy and Zbig say hi, kisses and so on!

As I just remarked to Zbig the other day, [at the Russian Tea Room, of course] we're back in the saddle again. So your John Bircher buddies can just go eat their li'l ole cotton-pickin' hearts out.

Edited December 7, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Duke Lane]

Shhh ... nobody's supposed to know about that!

[William Kelly]

As for the Get-a-way Bus, am I the only person who finds it a bit weird that the man accused of executing the President of the United States escapes via bus and cab?

I mean, has anybody ever heard of a Get-a-way Bus before, or since?

And if Oswald did kill Tippit, how did he get there?

How many possible ways are there to 10th and Patton from the Rooming House?

And if the murder of Tippit is connected to the assassination of the President, how is it, other than him being an innocent victim of a crazy Spree Killer?

As Harry Dean says, it is well known that Tippit worked weekends at a barbeque restaurant "owned by a Bircher."

That would be Austin's barbeque, right Duke?

Is Austin's still cookin'?

BK

[David G. Healy]

As for the Get-a-way Bus, am I the only person who finds it a bit weird that the man accused of executing the President of the United States escapes via bus and cab?

I mean, has anybody ever heard of a Get-a-way Bus before, or since?

And if Oswald did kill Tippit, how did he get there?

How many possible ways are there to 10th and Patton from the Rooming House?

And if the murder of Tippit is connected to the assassination of the President, how is it, other than him being an innocent victim of a crazy Spree Killer?

As Harry Dean says, it is well known that Tippit worked weekends at a barbeque restaurant "owned by a Bircher."

That would be Austin's barbeque, right Duke?

Is Austin's still cookin'?

BK

I think it's a safe assumption, that if this case ended up in a court of law today, Oswald would walk. (Unless the 6th Museum was well represented in the jury box, of course).

Tell ya what Bill, what makes the same amount of sense as a get-a-way bus, is this: Oswald was given a ride to his rooming house in a DPD squad car. Why not? There's testimony of one outside his rooming house beeping (for him?) within minutes of Oswald arriving there... So, why not, it (possibly) dropped him off?

[Duke Lane]

... Oswald was given a ride to his rooming house in a DPD squad car. Why not? There's testimony of one outside his rooming house beeping (for him?) within minutes of Oswald arriving there... So, why not, it (possibly) dropped him off?

Try this on for size:

There was a DPD patrol car thought to have been Tippit's at the Gloco station around the corner that had been sitting there for a while. It suddenly tore off at speed down Lancaster Street, which was open to the main drag back then (it no longer is). "Oswald" was in the house for three or four minutes. It takes approximately the same amount of time to go around the blocks to 1026.

I'm not convinced that the man inside the house was Oswald ... or at least, it's possible that it wasn't.

[William Kelly]

As for the Get-a-way Bus, am I the only person who finds it a bit weird that the man accused of executing the President of the United States escapes via bus and cab?

I mean, has anybody ever heard of a Get-a-way Bus before, or since?

And if Oswald did kill Tippit, how did he get there?

How many possible ways are there to 10th and Patton from the Rooming House?

And if the murder of Tippit is connected to the assassination of the President, how is it, other than him being an innocent victim of a crazy Spree Killer?

As Harry Dean says, it is well known that Tippit worked weekends at a barbeque restaurant "owned by a Bircher."

That would be Austin's barbeque, right Duke?

Is Austin's still cookin'?

BK

I think it's a safe assumption, that if this case ended up in a court of law today, Oswald would walk. (Unless the 6th Museum was well represented in the jury box, of course).

Tell ya what Bill, what makes the same amount of sense as a get-a-way bus, is this: Oswald was given a ride to his rooming house in a DPD squad car. Why not? There's testimony of one outside his rooming house beeping (for him?) within minutes of Oswald arriving there... So, why not, it (possibly) dropped him off?

Why keep making up an imaginary trial for Oswald?

If he wasn't the 6th Floor Sniper, and Tippit's murder was connected to what happened at Dealey Plaza, why not bring the evidence and witnesses before a Grand Jury Today?

The Tippit murder can be solved today and the impact of that could influence how what happened at Dealey Plaza plays out?

Of course, those responsible for the assassination and murder of Tippit would have us argue about it and let history decide.

BK

[Robert Walker]

As for the Get-a-way Bus, am I the only person who finds it a bit weird that the man accused of executing the President of the United States escapes via bus and cab?

I mean, has anybody ever heard of a Get-a-way Bus before, or since?

And if Oswald did kill Tippit, how did he get there?

How many possible ways are there to 10th and Patton from the Rooming House?

And if the murder of Tippit is connected to the assassination of the President, how is it, other than him being an innocent victim of a crazy Spree Killer?

As Harry Dean says, it is well known that Tippit worked weekends at a barbeque restaurant "owned by a Bircher."

That would be Austin's barbeque, right Duke?

Is Austin's still cookin'?

BK

I think it's a safe assumption, that if this case ended up in a court of law today, Oswald would walk. (Unless the 6th Museum was well represented in the jury box, of course).

Tell ya what Bill, what makes the same amount of sense as a get-a-way bus, is this: Oswald was given a ride to his rooming house in a DPD squad car. Why not? There's testimony of one outside his rooming house beeping (for him?) within minutes of Oswald arriving there... So, why not, it (possibly) dropped him off?

Why keep making up an imaginary trial for Oswald?

If he wasn't the 6th Floor Sniper, and Tippit's murder was connected to what happened at Dealey Plaza, why not bring the evidence and witnesses before a Grand Jury Today?

The Tippit murder can be solved today and the impact of that could influence how what happened at Dealey Plaza plays out?

Of course, those responsible for the assassination and murder of Tippit would have us argue about it and let history decide.

BK

Because I think Oswald stands a good chance of being indicted for Tippit. The evidence that counts are the staements made to the DPD on 11/23, not the later statements to the WC, and the DPD statements overwhelmingly implicate Oswald, both in description of killer at the scene of the crime, and witness ID's from the line ups. In this city, Oswald is indicted based on evidence presented by the prosecution. Oswald walks from the assassination of President Kennedy, though, as there is no direct evidence that paces Oswald in the window pulling the trigger at that moment.

[William Kelly]

As for the Get-a-way Bus, am I the only person who finds it a bit weird that the man accused of executing the President of the United States escapes via bus and cab?

I mean, has anybody ever heard of a Get-a-way Bus before, or since?

And if Oswald did kill Tippit, how did he get there?

How many possible ways are there to 10th and Patton from the Rooming House?

And if the murder of Tippit is connected to the assassination of the President, how is it, other than him being an innocent victim of a crazy Spree Killer?

As Harry Dean says, it is well known that Tippit worked weekends at a barbeque restaurant "owned by a Bircher."

That would be Austin's barbeque, right Duke?

Is Austin's still cookin'?

BK

I think it's a safe assumption, that if this case ended up in a court of law today, Oswald would walk. (Unless the 6th Museum was well represented in the jury box, of course).

Tell ya what Bill, what makes the same amount of sense as a get-a-way bus, is this: Oswald was given a ride to his rooming house in a DPD squad car. Why not? There's testimony of one outside his rooming house beeping (for him?) within minutes of Oswald arriving there... So, why not, it (possibly) dropped him off?

Why keep making up an imaginary trial for Oswald?

If he wasn't the 6th Floor Sniper, and Tippit's murder was connected to what happened at Dealey Plaza, why not bring the evidence and witnesses before a Grand Jury Today?

The Tippit murder can be solved today and the impact of that could influence how what happened at Dealey Plaza plays out?

Of course, those responsible for the assassination and murder of Tippit would have us argue about it and let history decide.

BK

Because I think Oswald stands a good chance of being indicted for Tippit.

Rob Walker,

Oswald can't ever be indicted for Tippit because he's dead.

The evidence that counts are the staements made to the DPD on 11/23, not the later statements to the WC,

Agreed. Okay, let's stick not only with the earliest eyewitness reports, but let's look to see how many of these eyewitnesses are alive today - and since Grand Juries in the USA can accept hearsay witness testimony - that is not adimissible if it goes to trial - we can even include such early sworn affidavits and testimony of those who have died - and see where it leads?

Okay?

and the DPD statements overwhelmingly implicate Oswald, both in description of killer at the scene of the crime, and witness ID's from the line ups.

That's description of killer at the scene of the crime - [Tippit Exhibits A)] and

witness ID's from the line ups - (some of which include the same people, ie. Davis sisters) - [Tippit Exhibits B]

In this city, Oswald is indicted based on evidence presented by the prosecution.

Exactly. The prosecutor is the District Attorney, who was Henry Wade at the time and is Craig Watkins now. Wade lost his chief suspect, but Watkins is not tied to the old guarde Dallas traditions that included a Dynasty of Wade heirs until Watkins took over. After freeing more wrongfully incarcarated convicts than ever before through DNA evidence that Wade faithfull kept archived away, there are now more cold case homicides in the city of Dallas than anywhere else in the world. One of them is the murder of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit and that of John F. Kennedy.

Oswald walks from the assassination of President Kennedy, though, as there is no direct evidence that paces Oswald in the window pulling the trigger at that moment.

So Oswald is framed for killing JFK but is not framed for, though is circumstantially guilty of killing officer Tippit, and because Oswald was killed while in the custody of the DPD, he can no longer be targeted as a suspect though we know he was a part of the operation because only your friends can frame you for a homicide.

And now for the clincer - Oswald's nickname in the USMC was "Ozzie Rabbit," then a popular cartoon character, but also the role he was set up to play in the Dealey Plaza Operation - that of the rabbit set off for the hounds to chase, while the real killers walk out the back door.

Why keep chasing the rabbit, and talk about indicting or exonerating the dead in court?

Let's go after the real Sixth Floor Sniper, and find out who really killed J.D. Tippit, because if it was Oswald, then because of Exhibits A and B, what happened at 10th and Patton and at Dealey Plaza wasn't just the act of a Spree Killer, or even a conspiracy by the mafia and CIA Cubans, but a full fledged Coup d'etat.

The Warren Commission will be successfull as long as it keeps the cold case murders of JFK and JDT out of the legal justice system.

BK

Edited December 9, 2008 by William Kelly

[Robert Walker]

Bill,

Oswald can't ever be indicted for Tippit because he's dead.

Naturally. I, of course was speaking hypothetically.

Exactly. The prosecutor is the District Attorney, who was Henry Wade at the time and is Craig Watkins now. Wade lost his chief suspect, but Watkins is not tied to the old guarde Dallas traditions that included a Dynasty of Wade heirs until Watkins took over. After freeing more wrongfully incarcarated convicts than ever before through DNA evidence that Wade faithfull kept archived away, there are now more cold case homicides in the city of Dallas than anywhere else in the world. One of them is the murder of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit and that of John F. Kennedy.

Watkins also released the JFK archives! All previous DA's kept them in the safe.

So Oswald is framed for killing JFK but is not framed for, though is circumstantially guilty of killing officer Tippit, and because Oswald was killed while in the custody of the DPD, he can no longer be targeted as a suspect though we know he was a part of the operation because only your friends can frame you for a homicide.

Why keep chasing the rabbit, and talk about indicting or exonerating the dead in court?

I think because we are still trying to figure out his role in all of this, and if we figure out his role, it could lead to the identity of the actual perpetrators. The more I learn about Oswald, the more I doubt he was part of a plot to assassinate the President and was simply used as an unwitting fall guy in the plot.

Let's go after the real Sixth Floor Sniper, and find out who really killed J.D. Tippit, because if it was Oswald, then because of Exhibits A and B, what happened at 10th and Patton and at Dealey Plaza wasn't just the act of a Spree Killer, or even a conspiracy by the mafia and CIA Cubans, but a full fledged Coup d'etat.

Oh, I'm with you that it would rock the free world if the actual conspirators were brought to justice. Finding out the names of the actual assassins, and the other people involved is a pretty hard nut tocrack, and rife with speculation in this forum.

The Warren Commission will be successfull as long as it keeps the cold case murders of JFK and JDT out of the legal justice system.

Th Warren commission report was successful because at a time when the country needed answers and assurances, the report provided them, and the press sold it to the public. The WC report was never designed to try to solve the murders, and in as such isn't keeping the cold murders from being solved or pursued. It has no jurisdiction in Texas. What keeps the murders from being solved is a lack of named suspects and witnesses who can identify them, no? I mean, I've never heard or read of a named suspect (other than Oswald) in the Tippit killing.

RW

[William Kelly]

Basic Background:

CE 2985

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H26_CE_2985.pdf

Oswald - Tippit Associates

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...swaldTippit.pdf

Austin's Barbeque - Cook and Ralp Paul

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...swaldTippit.pdf

[Duke Lane]

... I think because we are still trying to figure out his role in all of this, and if we figure out his role, it could lead to the identity of the actual perpetrators. The more I learn about Oswald, the more I doubt he was part of a plot to assassinate the President and was simply used as an unwitting fall guy in the plot.

... The Warren commission report was successful because at a time when the country needed answers and assurances, the report provided them, and the press sold it to the public. The WC report was never designed to try to solve the murders, and in as such isn't keeping the cold murders from being solved or pursued. It has no jurisdiction in Texas. What keeps the murders from being solved is a lack of named suspects and witnesses who can identify them, no? I mean, I've never heard or read of a named suspect (other than Oswald) in the Tippit killing.

Have you read Covering the Body? In it, the author, Barbie Zelizer, as her doctoral thesis in journalism, argued that, in essence, the press has put itself forward as "the" authority in the Kennedy assassination since, after all, they were "there" and you and I weren't. She went on to cite the various instances where press attacked the Garrison investigation as well as Stone's JFK film because it didn't jibe with their own perceptions of the events that they were "participants" in, even if only as observers ... as if, if you will, someone riding in the press bus could actually tell that it was Oswald who fired the shots and that, by "knowing" this, they can also know that nobody else participated in the killing with him. It's a rather compelling argument, no pun intended (but effective nevertheless!).

I think you would be arguing against the historical record to suggest that the WC was intended to salve rather than to solve. You do not read or hear about any of the former Commissioners or their counsel arguing that "we told you what you wanted to hear;" they - and those that argue their point of view - state unequivocably that not only did they "answer all the questions," but also provided all the answers. No stone was left unturned; no question left unresolved; it was the most intensive, thorough, complete and comprehensive investigation ever undertaken by the United States Government in any form or fashion up to that time.

The only equivocation the WC itself offered that its investigation fell short of a solution to the crime is that it "found no evidence" of conspiracy, which of course morphed into the fanciful claim that since it "found" none, effectively then there was none.

And so the press "sold" it, in many cases repackaged under its own umbra. While for a period following Watergate, many of those whose notions of government wholesomeness was eroded by the antics of those - I almost hesitate to use the word - conspirators in those activities actually supported the HSCA's formation, exactly unlike it supported (and actually undermined) Garrison's actions that ran counter to their own.

HSCA's failure to perform publicly until its own Final Report; to pursue all leads until closure; or to reach a final conclusion - opining that the assassination "most likely was the result of a conspiracy," but failing to define or pursue it on its own (which, of course, it could not) left as big or bigger a void as the WC may have in the first place: the WC was at least certain in its faulty findings; the HSCA equivocated and left if for someone else to fill that void. For the purposes of the US press, the HSCA might as well never have been formed; Zelizer argued that it "opened more questions than it started out to answer," was thus "ineffective," and thereby marginalized by the press: whatever it may have added to the discussion, for the purposes of mainstream journalism, it never existed.

What keeps the murders from being resolved is thus, in part, the fault of the media which does not want its authority undermined or repudiated: if they say that Oswald did it and did it alone - and can you name a single "mainstream" production that suggests otherwise? - then he must have, and to suggest otherwise is anathema to the authority and legitimacy of the media.

The media has jurisdiction everywhere: when Dan Rather hauls Walter Conkite out of his coffin to once again reassure the nation that "the Warren Commission got it right," there are millions of people watching; when a Posner or Myers or Bugliosi upholds the mainstream's point of view, their book is hailed as a "monument" upholding the truth. When you or I or Mark Lane or Harold Weisberg or E. Howard Hunt on his supposed deathbed tells us something different, it barely - if it even does at all - deserves below-the-fold mention on page 52 of a 50-page newspaper. What is "jurisdiction," whether or not the legally prescribed entity to pursue a legal recourse believes there to be such recourse, if the non-jurisdictional media decides to try the case in print?

When Garrison named Shaw, et al., as conspirators, he was taken down in the press; when the trial showed "a conspiracy," though not necessarily involving Shaw, et al., it somehow "proved" that there was "no conspiracy" involving anyone. When the HSCA could not define it, and the Justice Department failed to take up the gauntlet of further investigation thrown down by the HSCA - and indeed provided additional argument against any such conspiracy - it underscored the non-existence of conspiracy, named or unnamed. The "mainstream" considers Garrison a fraud, the HSCA a non-entity.

And the beat goes on.

There are at least six likely conspirators in the crime against Officer Tippit who are still alive today. That none was in any way identified in, for example, a "show-up" is only because none were brought into one; the opportunity never arose to so identify them by eyewitnesses. Would they have? It's a guess, but it's also a possibility. Their further lack of identification may simply be because, to date, the conspiracy was successful in what it intended to do, namely to not only do the deed, but also to shield the names of the participants from investigation.

I wish I could think of the journalist who, at the end of a no-conspiracy show, that the lack of evidence attests to "the fact that there was no conspiracy ... or that it was a very good one," which I submit is ultimately the intent of any conspiracy and any murder: to not be discovered. It's even easier not to be discovered when nobody wants to look for you and in some cases, hopes nobody ever finds one. What credibility would CBS or the New York Times have if - after 45 years of hawking the "lone gunman" theory, calling critics "crackpots" and "frauds" and "parasites" ("liars," according to Bugliosi), and arguing against any "conspiracy" that didn't begin and end with Lee Harvey Oswald - it was suddenly faced with a different reality? Would it call for those conspirators' meeting swift justice or call for any such investigation's meeting a swift end?

You don't think that the lack of any other "named conspirators" proves that Oswald "must have done it," do you? Wasn't that Henry Wade's modus operandi: if you don't have anyone I think is a better suspect, then the one that I favor must've been the one who did it?" Twenty men so far have been released after being sent away for a crime DNA now tells us that they didn't commit, despite Wade's gaining a conviction. Does this perhaps tell us that some people only collect the evidence that they want and feel they need to the total disregard of anything else?

Should we then have faith in the Oswald "conviction" that was already decided when the manhunt for the President's killer ended upon Oswald's capture?

Is a bird in the hand always worth two in the bush?

[David G. Healy]

... I think because we are still trying to figure out his role in all of this, and if we figure out his role, it could lead to the identity of the actual perpetrators. The more I learn about Oswald, the more I doubt he was part of a plot to assassinate the President and was simply used as an unwitting fall guy in the plot.

... The Warren commission report was successful because at a time when the country needed answers and assurances, the report provided them, and the press sold it to the public. The WC report was never designed to try to solve the murders, and in as such isn't keeping the cold murders from being solved or pursued. It has no jurisdiction in Texas. What keeps the murders from being solved is a lack of named suspects and witnesses who can identify them, no? I mean, I've never heard or read of a named suspect (other than Oswald) in the Tippit killing.

Have you read Covering the Body? In it, the author, Barbie Zelizer, as her doctoral thesis in journalism, argued that, in essence, the press has put itself forward as "the" authority in the Kennedy assassination since, after all, they were "there" and you and I weren't. She went on to cite the various instances where press attacked the Garrison investigation as well as Stone's JFK film because it didn't jibe with their own perceptions of the events that they were "participants" in, even if only as observers ... as if, if you will, someone riding in the press bus could actually tell that it was Oswald who fired the shots and that, by "knowing" this, they can also know that nobody else participated in the killing with him. It's a rather compelling argument, no pun intended (but effective nevertheless!).

I think you would be arguing against the historical record to suggest that the WC was intended to salve rather than to solve. You do not read or hear about any of the former Commissioners or their counsel arguing that "we told you what you wanted to hear;" they - and those that argue their point of view - state unequivocably that not only did they "answer all the questions," but also provided all the answers. No stone was left unturned; no question left unresolved; it was the most intensive, thorough, complete and comprehensive investigation ever undertaken by the United States Government in any form or fashion up to that time.

The only equivocation the WC itself offered that its investigation fell short of a solution to the crime is that it "found no evidence" of conspiracy, which of course morphed into the fanciful claim that since it "found" none, effectively then there was none.

And so the press "sold" it, in many cases repackaged under its own umbra. While for a period following Watergate, many of those whose notions of government wholesomeness was eroded by the antics of those - I almost hesitate to use the word - conspirators in those activities actually supported the HSCA's formation, exactly unlike it supported (and actually undermined) Garrison's actions that ran counter to their own.

HSCA's failure to perform publicly until its own Final Report; to pursue all leads until closure; or to reach a final conclusion - opining that the assassination "most likely was the result of a conspiracy," but failing to define or pursue it on its own (which, of course, it could not) left as big or bigger a void as the WC may have in the first place: the WC was at least certain in its faulty findings; the HSCA equivocated and left if for someone else to fill that void. For the purposes of the US press, the HSCA might as well never have been formed; Zelizer argued that it "opened more questions than it started out to answer," was thus "ineffective," and thereby marginalized by the press: whatever it may have added to the discussion, for the purposes of mainstream journalism, it never existed.

What keeps the murders from being resolved is thus, in part, the fault of the media which does not want its authority undermined or repudiated: if they say that Oswald did it and did it alone - and can you name a single "mainstream" production that suggests otherwise? - then he must have, and to suggest otherwise is anathema to the authority and legitimacy of the media.

The media has jurisdiction everywhere: when Dan Rather hauls Walter Conkite out of his coffin to once again reassure the nation that "the Warren Commission got it right," there are millions of people watching; when a Posner or Myers or Bugliosi upholds the mainstream's point of view, their book is hailed as a "monument" upholding the truth. When you or I or Mark Lane or Harold Weisberg or E. Howard Hunt on his supposed deathbed tells us something different, it barely - if it even does at all - deserves below-the-fold mention on page 52 of a 50-page newspaper. What is "jurisdiction," whether or not the legally prescribed entity to pursue a legal recourse believes there to be such recourse, if the non-jurisdictional media decides to try the case in print?

When Garrison named Shaw, et al., as conspirators, he was taken down in the press; when the trial showed "a conspiracy," though not necessarily involving Shaw, et al., it somehow "proved" that there was "no conspiracy" involving anyone. When the HSCA could not define it, and the Justice Department failed to take up the gauntlet of further investigation thrown down by the HSCA - and indeed provided additional argument against any such conspiracy - it underscored the non-existence of conspiracy, named or unnamed. The "mainstream" considers Garrison a fraud, the HSCA a non-entity.

And the beat goes on.

There are at least six likely conspirators in the crime against Officer Tippit who are still alive today. That none was in any way identified in, for example, a "show-up" is only because none were brought into one; the opportunity never arose to so identify them by eyewitnesses. Would they have? It's a guess, but it's also a possibility. Their further lack of identification may simply be because, to date, the conspiracy was successful in what it intended to do, namely to not only do the deed, but also to shield the names of the participants from investigation.

I wish I could think of the journalist who, at the end of a no-conspiracy show, that the lack of evidence attests to "the fact that there was no conspiracy ... or that it was a very good one," which I submit is ultimately the intent of any conspiracy and any murder: to not be discovered. It's even easier not to be discovered when nobody wants to look for you and in some cases, hopes nobody ever finds one. What credibility would CBS or the New York Times have if - after 45 years of hawking the "lone gunman" theory, calling critics "crackpots" and "frauds" and "parasites" ("liars," according to Bugliosi), and arguing against any "conspiracy" that didn't begin and end with Lee Harvey Oswald - it was suddenly faced with a different reality? Would it call for those conspirators' meeting swift justice or call for any such investigation's meeting a swift end?

You don't think that the lack of any other "named conspirators" proves that Oswald "must have done it," do you? Wasn't that Henry Wade's modus operandi: if you don't have anyone I think is a better suspect, then the one that I favor must've been the one who did it?" Twenty men so far have been released after being sent away for a crime DNA now tells us that they didn't commit, despite Wade's gaining a conviction. Does this perhaps tell us that some people only collect the evidence that they want and feel they need to the total disregard of anything else?

Should we then have faith in the Oswald "conviction" that was already decided when the manhunt for the President's killer ended upon Oswald's capture?

Is a bird in the hand always worth two in the bush?

First-rate work, Duke Lane.... EXCELLENT!