A collection of comments published on the AARC website

[Pat Speer]

For the 59th anniversary of the assassination, Alan Dale collected some comments from some veteran researchers and writers on the case. Among these writers are John Newman, Larry Hancock and Peter Dale Scott..

These can be read here: https://aarclibrary.org/22-november-1963-22-november-2022/

FWIW, I think Dan Hardway's stood out. 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

For the 59th anniversary of the assassination, Alan Dale collected some comments from some veteran researchers and writers on the case. Among these writers are John Newman, Larry Hancock and Peter Dale Scott..

These can be read here: https://aarclibrary.org/22-november-1963-22-november-2022/

FWIW, I think Dan Hardway's stood out. 

Thanks for posting. 

Not pandering: I actually liked your comment best, or nearly so (different qualities to different posts, apples v. oranges etc.) 

It becomes clear the WC acted as a prosecutorial (not investigative) body, and lawyer Arlen Specter accepted an assignment to bring the federal case against a leftie, loser, loner gunman defendant (who had no counsel).  

Lawyers argue their case, they are not objective investigators. They marshall all evidence in their favor, and back then by means fair or foul, and present the most powerful narrative possible. In Specter's defense, a lot of the evidence being brought to him was cooked.

LHO's palm print on the rifle? CE 399? 

So it goes....

Edited November 25, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Guest]

Thanks for posting, had not seen it.

I sure hope that some time in the future people will find some common ground, and build from that up.

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Some eloquent comments. Thanks to Alan Dale for collecting these, and the authors.