What evidence of a conspiracy would we expect to find?

[Lance Payette]

We keep hearing that "all the evidence" points to Oswald and that CTers and those like me who are at least open-minded never present any "evidence" for their positions.

Realistically, what evidence would be EXPECTED?

I've indicated openness to a Mafia conspiracy. Trafficante's lawyer said he confessed. An inmate who was an FBI informant said Marcello confessed. Maybe both are bogus, maybe not. There are other "hints and allegations" (as the saying goes) that suggest Mafia involvement. (Forget Ruby - the Mafia wouldn't have cared if Oswald lived or died, and they sure as hell wouldn't have recruited a red-flag loose cannon like Ruby.)

Precisely what evidence would we EXPECT if the JFKA were a Mafia hit? (You can, of course, ask this about any conspiracy theory.)

In terms of the mechanics of it, the JFKA would have been just another Mafia hit. No big deal, business as usual. The actual gunman, a pro, would have been in and out of the Dal-Tex building (or wherever) as seamlessly as Joe the accountant. If Oswald were a Mafia patsy - a role for which he would have been almost too good to be true - then OF COURSE the evidence would point to him to the maximum extent possible.

So, barring some absolutely bombshell piece of evidence that comes to light, we are limited to: (1) the Trafficante and Marcello hearsay and other evidence that is largely hearsay or completely apocryphal (e.g., the mysterious Robert E. Morgan who ostensibly found a shell while working on the roof of the County Records building); (2) the kinds of questions that I and others have raised about Oswald that just don't seem to fit the LN narrative or the profile of a Presidential assassin; and (3) the questions raised by the Dealey Plaza evidence itself.

In a sane conspiracy (i.e., a Mafia conspiracy) with Oswald as a patsy, there would have been one and only one pro in or on a building to the rear of the limousine who would be firing on a trajectory plausibly attributable to Oswald, using either ammunition that would completely fragment or a sabot with a 6.5 bullet. The LN narrative posits a last-resort theory called the SBT ... and not just that, but an SBT with a Magic Bullet that survived almost pristinely intact ... and not just that, but a Magic Bullet that left holes in JFK's clothing and body that force the claim that "his clothes must have been bunched" ... and not only that, but a victim, JBC, who pretty much insisted the SBT was incorrect ... and not only that, but a Magic Bullet whose provenance is uncertain at best ... and not only that, but a Magic Bullet that Landis claimed he found on the back seat of the limo! And yet this is the  evidence, we are told, that leaves no room for doubt and seals Oswald's fate as the Lone Nut.

Evangelical Christians do the same thing with the Resurrection: they insist all the evidence shows it occurred as a real-world event you could have videotaped if you'd been there. Well, of course they say this; it's the linchpin of the entire faith. But when you approach it in the same way that I suggest the LN narrative should be approached, you realize it is entirely an article of faith and that the evidence and reasonable inferences are nowhere near as solid as the True Believers claim. Can anyone produce evidence it didn't happen, the True Believers ask? Barring a definitive discovery of the bones of Jesus, no - but we can critically examine what evidence there is, draw reasonable inferences, and decide which understanding of the event seems most plausible.

Someone tell me: If the JFKA were a tight, compartmentalized Mafia hit with Oswald as a patsy, what affirmative evidence would you expect there to be? It really seems to me that the demand for affirmative evidence is largely a red herring.

(What there is NOT, I will admit - at least so far - is anything that would plausibly tie Oswald to anyone connected to the Mafia. This is the elephant in the room with the Mafia theory. Dutz Murret - as I believe John Orr suggests - is possible but seems far-fetched to me. To be an effective patsy, Oswald would have had to believe he was part of a pro-Castro assassination and been completely oblivious to Mafia involvement.)

[John Corbett]

We keep hearing that "all the evidence" points to Oswald and that CTers and those like me who are at least open-minded never present any "evidence" for their positions.

Realistically, what evidence would be EXPECTED?

That's for the people hypothesizing a conspiracy to figure out. But since I'm in a generous mood, I'll give you a little help.

Physical evidence of one or more gunshots from a location other than the sniper's nest.

An eyewitness to a second gunman.

Wiretaps showing communications between the plotters and Oswald. Not an unrealistic expectation if you suspect the Mafia.

An informant.

That's just off the top of my head.

You'll have to take if from here.

[Zeon Mason]

Well I would suggest that if Oswald was the shooter and he was  part of a conspiracy, there were no plans for Oswald to be the patsy because surely there would have been a conspirator cameraman on the ground filming or getting a zoomed in photo of Oswald’s face as he stuck the rifle out the window.

That’s my LN / perspective.

So if it’s a conspiracy, then Oswald was not the shooter although he might have been used by the conspirators after they found out he was kind of a kook whom had taken pictures of himself with a rifle and revolver while holding magazines.

That’s my Centrist / Skeptic perspective
 
Now who would know about Oswald’s rifle and his photos and that he had shot at Walker and all kinds of things helpful to the WC narrative ?That  would be Marina, the innocent naive  USSR girl who had coincidentally met all the other CIA defectors and of course said nothing at all to her relative , a KGB officer no less.

But we are not allowed to question the veracity of poor little Marina , the one who in one WC testimony can barely speak English or understand it and then in other WC testimony is speaking English fluently and in great detail without a stumble. It’s a Miracle! Certainly the new husband was helpful.  However , George DeCIA spy , best friend of Oswald is depressed and finally reaches out to George H.W. Bush to get advice. George H.W.B sends a letter to George DeM and George DeM  decides he should talk to a reporter but alas, about an hour before he is supposed to meet and share, he decides to put a shotgun in his mouth and pull the trigger.

Oh well nothing to see here folks. It’s nothing because “Oswald is our man” and “this case is cinched”.

That’s my CT / Cynic perspective.

[Lance Payette]

That's for the people hypothesizing a conspiracy to figure out. But since I'm in a generous mood, I'll give you a little help.

Physical evidence of one or more gunshots from a location other than the sniper's nest.

An eyewitness to a second gunman.

Wiretaps showing communications between the plotters and Oswald. Not an unrealistic expectation if you suspect the Mafia.

An informant.

That's just off the top of my head.

You'll have to take if from here.

All of those would be wonderful, but would they realistically be EXPECTED in a tight, compartmentalized Mafia hit of the POTUS - a hit that could literally destroy the organization if it went awry? Have a little respect for professionalism of the Mafia, willya? The American and Sicilian Mafia are estimated to have carried out thousands of successful hits over the past century. My expectation for the JFKA would be no more evidence than we have.

Alas, all of the Mafia-did-it books are not available on Kindle, so I'm going to have to load up on hard copies.

I know Larry Schnapf and Pat Speer lean toward the Mafia. I did a search on the Ed Forum and found what I expected: The Mafia gets little attention, and then only in the context of being a bit player in the elaborate and completely unbelievable LBJ, CIA and Everyone Else In the World Except Jackie and Hickey Conspiracy. The CT community simply cannot abide a conspiracy as dull and unsatisfying as the Mafia - just the Mafia.

[Lance Payette]

Well I would suggest that if Oswald was the shooter and he was  part of a conspiracy, there were no plans for Oswald to be the patsy because surely there would have been a conspirator cameraman on the ground filming or getting a zoomed in photo of Oswald’s face as he stuck the rifle out the window.

Perhaps, but now we have a cameraman who is part of the conspiracy and is going to have to survive scrutiny of himself. I ran this past Phoebe Marcello, Carlos' cousin quadruply removed, and she said "Nah, I think they had Oswald sufficiently framed that photos would have been overkill. 'Overkill' - get it? Hee, hee, hee."

So if it’s a conspiracy, then Oswald was not the shooter although he might have been used by the conspirators after they found out he was kind if a kook who had taken pictures of himself with a rifle and revolver.

I will agree that Oswald being a shooter in a Mafia conspiracy that he thinks is a pro-Castro conspiracy bumps up against some of the problems I suggested with the LN narrative - he simply doesn't act like there is anything of that sort on his mind while he's in Irving or on the morning of the JFKA. On the other hand, to be the perfect Mafia patsy, he has to be a shooter who knows nothing except that he's in a pro-Castro conspiracy. In this scenario, it doesn't matter if he lives or dies. As I understand Orr's theory, Marcello recruits Oswald through the Dutz Murret connection and makes him an offer he can't refuse - but then Oswald knows too much and can't be allowed to live. I absolutely refuse to believe the Mafia would entrust the future of the entire organization to ... JACK RUBY?

That’s my Centrist perspective
 
Now who would know about Oswald’s rifle and his photos and that he had shot at Walker and all kinds of things helpful to the WC narrative ?That  would be Marina, the innocent naive  USSR girl who had coincidentally met all the other CIA defectors and of course said nothing at all to her relative KGB officer.

But we are not allowed to question poor little Marina , the one who in one WC testimony can barely speak English or understand it and then in other WC testimony is speaking English fluently and in great detail without a stumble. It’s a Miracle! Certainly the new husband is happy. However , George DeCIA spy , best friend of Oswald is depressed and finally reaches out to George H.W. Bush to get advice. George H.W.B sends a letter to George DeM and George DeSpy decides he should talk to a reporter but alas, about an hour before he is supposed to meet and share, he decides to put a shotgun in his mouth and pull the trigger.

Oh well nothing to see here folks. It’s nothing because “Oswald is our man” and “this case is cinched”.

That’s my CT perspective.

I could be wrong, but isn't most of Marina's WC testimony via an interpreter - so we're not really reading her words? I have a really hard time picturing Our Little Marina as being up to anything really nefarious in either the USSR or US. If she was, she deserves ten Academy Awards. I think I've posted this before, but it's an article with some excellent photos about Our Little Marina's English studies at the University of Michigan after the JFKA: https://heritage.umich.edu/stories/the-assassins-widow/.

[John Corbett]

All of those would be wonderful, but would they realistically be EXPECTED in a tight, compartmentalized Mafia hit of the POTUS - a hit that could literally destroy the organization if it went awry? Have a little respect for professionalism of the Mafia, willya? The American and Sicilian Mafia are estimated to have carried out thousands of successful hits over the past century. My expectation for the JFKA would be no more evidence than we have.

Alas, all of the Mafia-did-it books are not available on Kindle, so I'm going to have to load up on hard copies.

I know Larry Schnapf and Pat Speer lean toward the Mafia. I did a search on the Ed Forum and found what I expected: The Mafia gets little attention, and then only in the context of being a bit player in the elaborate and completely unbelievable LBJ, CIA and Everyone Else In the World Except Jackie and Hickey Conspiracy. The CT community simply cannot abide a conspiracy as dull and unsatisfying as the Mafia - just the Mafia.

There is as much evidence of Mafia involvement as there is for any other entity other than Oswald which is to say there is zero evidence. If you want to hypothesize a conspiracy for which you can find no evidence, that's your privilege. I choose to base my beliefs on real evidence.

[Lance Payette]

There is as much evidence of Mafia involvement as there is for any other entity other than Oswald which is to say there is zero evidence. If you want to hypothesize a conspiracy for which you can find no evidence, that's your privilege. I choose to base my beliefs on real evidence.

Well, let's see: Frank Ragano, who was unquestionably one of the principal lawyers for Hoffa, Marcello and Trafficante, said there had long been hints of Mafia involvement in the JFKA and that Trafficante made a deathbed confession. Hearsay regarding deathbed confessions is admissible in court under the exceptions for "dying declarations' or "statements against interest" - but you, of course, knew this from Episode #89 of Perry Mason, where Big Louie confessed "Yeah, I killed da bum" and Perry responded "Son of a gun, Della, I didn't see that coming." Ergo, what Ragano says cannot be dismissed as "zero evidence." He should be and was scrutinized, but Blakey believed him.

You can keep saying "zero evidence" to everyone who disagrees with you, but your opinion that the evidence is inadequate does not equate to zero evidence.

Lest anyone think I'm hiding the ball, here is the Wokeypoodia section on Ragano's claims, including Bugliosi's opinion that they were bogus (no, really?).

JFK assassination claims

On January 14, 1992, Ragano told Jack Newfield of the New York Post that he relayed a request from Hoffa to Trafficante and Marcello asking that the two Mafia bosses kill Kennedy.[37] He repeated the claim two days later on ABC's Good Morning America,[38] in Newfield's Frontline report entitled JFK, Hoffa and Mob broadcast in November 1992,[39] and again in his 1994 autobiography Mob Lawyer.[8]

According to Ragano, he met Hoffa at the Teamsters' headquarters in Washington D.C. then delivered the message to Trafficante and Marcello a few days later in a meeting at the Royal Orleans Hotel in New Orleans.[37][38] He stated he was chosen by Hoffa because, as both Hoffa and Trafficante's lawyer, he could be assured of attorney–client privilege.[37] Ragano said that Jim Garrison served as a patsy for the New Orleans mob by disseminating theories that served to distract attention from mafia figures who were involved in the plot.[40]

Although Ragano believed he had received a few hints from both Trafficante and Marcello that they had somehow been involved in the Kennedy assassination, it was not until just before he died in 1987 that Trafficante, according to Ragano, made a direct confession to him. Ragano wrote that on March 13, 1987, a dying Trafficante (he died four days later) asked to meet him in Tampa for a hurried meeting. While riding in Ragano's car, Trafficante allegedly told Ragano in Sicilian: "Carlos e' futtutu. Non duvevamu ammazzari a Giovanni. Duvevamu ammazzari a Bobby," which Ragano translated as: "Carlos screwed up. We shouldn't have killed John. We should have killed Bobby."[41] Ragano stated three witnesses could support his statement that he met Trafficante in Tampa.[42] He refused to name them adding: "One guy is afraid of retaliation. The other guys are two doctors, who say they'll testify if they're summoned to court."[42]

In his book Reclaiming History: the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Vincent Bugliosi has pointed out many flaws in Ragano's claims, including the fact that Trafficante was most likely not in Tampa on the day in question, but was rather in North Miami Beach receiving dialysis treatments.[43] Bugliosi argues that it is absurd to think that Marcello and Trafficante would get involved in plotting to assassinate a president, particularly as nothing more than a supposed favor to Jimmy Hoffa.[44] Bugliosi also points out that by allegedly conveying a message in 1963 to that effect, and by relating this confession from an alleged conspirator, Ragano would himself be admitting to having been a part of a murder conspiracy.[45]

Shortly after the initial allegations, Jeffrey Hart compared Ragano's account with that presented in Oliver Stone's recently released film JFK.[46] According to Hart, Ragano presented an "earthy motive, vastly more plausible than the movie theory."[46] Hart quoted G. Robert Blakey as stating that he believed Ragano and that his testimony "would have strengthened the conclusions" of the HSCA.[46] Hart also quoted Frank Mankiewicz, Robert F. Kennedy's press secretary, as finding Ragano's scenario as "the most plausible (assassination) theory".[46]

When Ragano was questioned by the Assassination Records Review Board, created in 1992 to reexamine JFK conspiracy theories after the release of Stone's film, he claimed to have contemporaneous notes of his conversations regarding the JFK plot, but when they were produced, "he could not definitively state whether the notes were taken during the meetings [with mob figures]... or later when he was working on his book." His notes were subjected to Secret Service tests to determine when they were actually prepared, but the results were inconclusive.[47]