The JFKA As A Whodunnit

[John Corbett]

I remarked in another thread that if the JFKA was a whodunnit, it was the worst whodunnit ever written. The murderer was revealed at the bottom of page one. By the time I got home from school, they already had him in custody.

I think those who think it is a whodunnit view the JFKA like a Perry Mason episode. The standard formula was for a prime suspect to be identified early in the episode. That person would become Perry's client. Perry and his team would investigate the crime. The case would go to trial and against the efforts of Hamilton Burger, Perry would gradually unravel the case and typically would put the real killer on the stand and coerce a confession from him (or her).

CTs like to treat Oswald as one of Perry Mason's clients. Sure, it looks like he was the perp but they just know that if they keep working at it, they will prove the prime suspect didn't do it after all. I can't wait to find out who they are going to get to confess on the witness stand, although that will likely require a seance.

[Lance Payette]

Is there a way to correct a typo in the Subject line?

When the Beatles would write songs, they would often plug in nonsense lyrics to be fixed later. This occurred with "Hey, Jude." When Paul demonstrated the song and came to the lyric "The movement you need is on your shoulder" he said "Don't worry, I'll fix that later." John replied "No, it's perfect, leave it." I have no idea what a shodunnit would be, but it's somehow perfect. "Oswald sho' dunnit, baby, of that I'm sure."

Your Perry Mason example is ironic. I laugh at the many, many episodes which are so complex that they end with Perry, Della and Drake sitting around a restaurant table. The plot has been almost impossible to follow, and the director knows it, so Della launches into her little summation for the benefit of the viewers: "And so, Perry, then Shirley was actually Ted wearing a latex mask ... and the dog in fact belonged to Bob ... and it all tied back into that confrontation between Shirley and Babs when they were on summer vaction in Istanbul back in college ... right?" Perry: "That's right, Della." Roll the credits.

There are two aspects to the JFKA: (1) Was Oswald the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza? and (2) Were Oswald and Dealey Plaza the whole story? It's almost absurd to suggest there is no whodunnit aspect to either of these. The WC, the HSCA, the Church Committee, the ARRB, the current legislative movement ... the vast number of technical medical, ballistic and forensic articles ... the 1000 or so books, ranging from the absurd to the definitely not absurd ... the concerted effort to keep the lid on the LN narrative ... yada yada yada - it all flies in the face of the JFKA being as cut-and-dried as you for some reason insist is the case.

As I've stated more than once, those who are clearly obsessed with the JFKA, but for no other reason than to keep hammering and hammering and hammering the LN narrative as though it were their religion and needed to be defended against any and all infidels, are a bigger mystery to me than any Harvey and Lee cultist.

[John Corbett]

When the Beatles would write songs, they would often plug in nonsense lyrics to be fixed later. This occurred with "Hey, Jude." When Paul demonstrated the song and came to the lyric "The movement you need is on your shoulder" he said "Don't worry, I'll fix that later." John replied "No, it's perfect, leave it." I have no idea what a shodunnit would be, but it's somehow perfect. "Oswald sho' dunnit, baby, of that I'm sure."

Your Perry Mason example is ironic. I laugh at the many, many episodes which are so complex that they end with Perry, Della and Drake sitting around a restaurant table. The plot has been almost impossible to follow, and the director knows it, so Della launches into her little summation for the benefit of the viewers: "And so, Perry, then Shirley was actually Ted wearing a latex mask ... and the dog in fact belonged to Bob ... and it all tied back into that confrontation between Shirley and Babs when they were on summer vaction in Istanbul back in college ... right?" Perry: "That's right, Della." Roll the credits.

There are two aspects to the JFKA: (1) Was Oswald the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza? and (2) Were Oswald and Dealey Plaza the whole story? It's almost absurd to suggest there is no whodunnit aspect to either of these. The WC, the HSCA, the Church Committee, the ARRB, the current legislative movement ... the vast number of technical medical, ballistic and forensic articles ... the 1000 or so books, ranging from the absurd to the definitely not absurd ... the concerted effort to keep the lid on the LN narrative ... yada yada yada - it all flies in the face of the JFKA being as cut-and-dried as you for some reason insist is the case.

As I've stated more than once, those who are clearly obsessed with the JFKA, but for no other reason than to keep hammering and hammering and hammering the LN narrative as though it were their religion and needed to be defended against any and all infidels, are a bigger mystery to me than any Harvey and Lee cultist.

Some of us think the truth is worth defending, even if our reach doesn't extend beyond the online forums. For decades, before online discussion groups became a reality, the CTs had the field to themselves. The two main avenues for one to express their opinions were writing books and appearing on  electronic media programs. Few LNs were writing books defending the WC because there was no money in it and few appeared on radio or TV programs because there were no ratings in it. That allowed conspiracy theories to flourish like unattended weeds. With the popularization of the internet, some semblance of balance was restored to the discourse. The CTs were still in the majority, but the LN narrative was allowed to breathe. I don't know if it is reflective of public opinion but my very unscientific observation is the LNs make up a significantly higher percentage of the participants on the various forums than we did even 10 years ago. Has progress been made in shaping public opinion. I don't know. I haven't seen a recent poll on the subject but I would be there are still 60-65% who believe in conspiracy of some sort. I think if people were completely honest about it, a majority would say they don't give a rat's ass one way or another.

[Royell Storing]

Some of us think the truth is worth defending, even if our reach doesn't extend beyond the online forums. For decades, before online discussion groups became a reality, the CTs had the field to themselves. The two main avenues for one to express their opinions were writing books and appearing on  electronic media programs. Few LNs were writing books defending the WC because there was no money in it and few appeared on radio or TV programs because there were no ratings in it. That allowed conspiracy theories to flourish like unattended weeds. With the popularization of the internet, some semblance of balance was restored to the discourse. The CTs were still in the majority, but the LN narrative was allowed to breathe. I don't know if it is reflective of public opinion but my very unscientific observation is the LNs make up a significantly higher percentage of the participants on the various forums than we did even 10 years ago. Has progress been made in shaping public opinion. I don't know. I haven't seen a recent poll on the subject but I would be there are still 60-65% who believe in conspiracy of some sort. I think if people were completely honest about it, a majority would say they don't give a rat's ass one way or another.

    Don't know what TV you have been watching. CBS, NBC, ABC have always put out Pro LN Specials. Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley, Jennings, ALL of them were pushing this LN  . That was their job and they knew it.  Even the relatively recent stuff we see on Smithsonian, Nat Geo, History Channel is Pro LN. Nat Geo gave Max Holland the platform to push his bullet dinging off the traffic signal support beam without a shred of evidence. The LN Tripe has been supported by the Fake News'ers since Day 1. If these guys were "on the square", they would release their Original Assassination Films. They refuse to do this. Their, "in the bag". And they have been dating back to WW 2. During WW 2, that news "stuff" that was shown in Movie Theaters along with the movies themselves was pure propaganda.

[Martin Weidmann]

Some of us think the truth is worth defending, even if our reach doesn't extend beyond the online forums. For decades, before online discussion groups became a reality, the CTs had the field to themselves. The two main avenues for one to express their opinions were writing books and appearing on  electronic media programs. Few LNs were writing books defending the WC because there was no money in it and few appeared on radio or TV programs because there were no ratings in it. That allowed conspiracy theories to flourish like unattended weeds. With the popularization of the internet, some semblance of balance was restored to the discourse. The CTs were still in the majority, but the LN narrative was allowed to breathe. I don't know if it is reflective of public opinion but my very unscientific observation is the LNs make up a significantly higher percentage of the participants on the various forums than we did even 10 years ago. Has progress been made in shaping public opinion. I don't know. I haven't seen a recent poll on the subject but I would be there are still 60-65% who believe in conspiracy of some sort. I think if people were completely honest about it, a majority would say they don't give a rat's ass one way or another.

Some of us think the truth is worth defending

There is nothing wrong with defending the truth, but that's not what you are doing. You defend what you believe is the truth and you can't understand that other people might not agree with you or even ask critical questions.

I think if people were completely honest about it, a majority would say they don't give a rat's ass one way or another.

I'm one of those. I couldn't care less if Oswald did it or not. The guy has been dead for decades, so what would be the purpose of defending him?

My only interest in this case is simply to find out if the evidence that was used to declare Oswald guilty actually holds up under scrutiny. But I can't say that to a die hard LN because he will nevertheless claim that I'm trying to defend Oswald.

[Jarrett Smith]

Perry Mason would have a field day with this case. The 1960's version of OJ Simpson. There are so many holes in this case no jury would convict Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

Perry Mason would have a field day with this case. The 1960's version of OJ Simpson. There are so many holes in this case no jury would convict Oswald.

There are so many holes in this case no jury would convict Oswald.

I agree there are all sorts of problems with the evidence, but I'm not so sure that Oswald wouldn't have been convicted.

Texas doesn't have a great track record and the innocence project has proven that many of the Wade convictions were unsafe.

A trial has it's own dynamic and there is no way of knowing what evidence would have been presented at court.