JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Corbett on June 02, 2026, 04:20:49 AM
-
I had been watching ABC earlier this evening when I fell asleep. When I woke up, I realized ABC was rebroadcasting Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK which I had seen earlier although I can't remember exactly when. My best guess is it was last fall, possible around the anniversary of the assassination. They had a typical cast of LN defenders as well as skeptics. Dale Meyers and Oliver Stone both had significant participation in the program. It had a little bit for everybody, both from the LN viewpoint and the CT side. There was nothing new about any of it. The same issues and arguments were being made that I have seen in 35 years of discussing the JFKA online. Those of us on the LN side see no mystery to what happened. All the forensic evidence points to LHO and nobody else. The CTs raise the same questions that have been asked and answered ad infinitum. It wasn't a program that was going to change anybody's mind one way or the other. Those of us on the LN side are confident we know how the assassination went down and those on the opposing side keep raising the questions but never any real evidence. All this program might have done was possibly introduce a new generation of viewers to the issues surrounding the assassination without providing any definitive answers. The case will never be explained to everyone's satisfaction. That isn't a problem for those of us on the LN side of the debate. We know who killed JFK.
-
I had been watching ABC earlier this evening when I fell asleep. When I woke up, I realized ABC was rebroadcasting Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK which I had seen earlier although I can't remember exactly when. My best guess is it was last fall, possible around the anniversary of the assassination. They had a typical cast of LN defenders as well as skeptics. Dale Meyers and Oliver Stone both had significant participation in the program. It had a little bit for everybody, both from the LN viewpoint and the CT side. There was nothing new about any of it. The same issues and arguments were being made that I have seen in 35 years of discussing the JFKA online. Those of us on the LN side see no mystery to what happened. All the forensic evidence points to LHO and nobody else. The CTs raise the same questions that have been asked and answered ad infinitum. It wasn't a program that was going to change anybody's mind one way or the other. Those of us on the LN side are confident we know how the assassination went down and those on the opposing side keep raising the questions but never any real evidence. All this program might have done was possibly introduce a new generation of viewers to the issues surrounding the assassination without providing any definitive answers. The case will never be explained to everyone's satisfaction. That isn't a problem for those of us on the LN side of the debate. We know who killed JFK.
The problem with these types of shows - which I believe are targeted to people who know little or nothing about the case - is that they feel the need to be balanced. If you were airing a show on whether the Earth was flat or round, you really don't promote knowledge by giving equal time to those peddling flat Earth nonsense. In addition, to get viewers, they need to spice up these programs. If they just came out and said the obvious that Oswald did it, there was no conspiracy, good night, the ratings would be low. So they have to entertain all the nutty theories to make it more interesting. Cuba, the Mob, CIA etc. The net result is that anyone who casually views this kind of program walks away with the impression that there may be doubt about Oswald's guilt.
-
The problem with these types of shows - which I believe are targeted to people who know little or nothing about the case - is that they feel the need to be balanced. If you were airing a show on whether the Earth was flat or round, you really don't promote knowledge by giving equal time to those peddling flat Earth nonsense. In addition, to get viewers, they need to spice up these programs. If they just came out and said the obvious that Oswald did it, there was no conspiracy, good night, the ratings would be low. So they have to entertain all the nutty theories to make it more interesting. Cuba, the Mob, CIA etc. The net result is that anyone who casually views this kind of program walks away with the impression that there may be doubt about Oswald's guilt.
On the 40th anniversary, ABC did a similar program hosted by Peter Jennings who passed away a few years later. It was very much a pro-LN presentation. They looked much more extensively at Dale Meyers' computer animation and addressed some of the objections the CTs had about the WC conclusion.
The program I watched last night allowed some questionable statements to be made by some of the CT participants. The one that almost got me to jump out of my seat was when one of them claimed that Oswald threatened to kill JFK while in Mexico City. There is no evidence I am aware of that Oswald made any such statement. How would Oswald even know that a few months later fate would hand him a golden opportunity to achieve infamy?
-
The only honest answer would be: we don't know!
Anybody who is interested in this case is working on second hand information and a story put together by talented lawyers. Some of us believe it, some of us have doubts about it and others simply don't believe it at all.
But no matter in which group you are, one thing is for sure; you have never been able to investigate the case with full access to all the evidence (so, not only what the WC published), so all you have is an opinion.
That, by itself is no problem. People have opinions about all sorts of things. There are still some idiots who think Trump is good for the country (yes, that's my opinion), but it gets tricky when opinions are being presented as fact, when the person doing that really hasn't got a clue about his opinion being right or wrong.
Is it possible that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit? Yes, of course that's possible!. Is it possible that Oswald was indeed a patsy as he said? Again, yes, that's possible! Is it possible there was a conspiracy prior to the fact? Sure, despite the absence of evidence, it's still possible! And is it possible that there was a conspiracy after the fact, to wrap the case around an already dead Oswald? Yes, given the track record of the DPD and Henry Wade in the sixties, that's possible also.
And all this, in my opinion, makes the question asked in the opening post obsolete.
-
On the 40th anniversary, ABC did a similar program hosted by Peter Jennings who passed away a few years later. It was very much a pro-LN presentation. They looked much more extensively at Dale Meyers' computer animation and addressed some of the objections the CTs had about the WC conclusion.
The program I watched last night allowed some questionable statements to be made by some of the CT participants. The one that almost got me to jump out of my seat was when one of them claimed that Oswald threatened to kill JFK while in Mexico City. There is no evidence I am aware of that Oswald made any such statement. How would Oswald even know that a few months later fate would hand him a golden opportunity to achieve infamy?
I believe the evidence for Oswald's supposed statement is Gus Russo's G2 sources, about which Ben Cole knows more than I. Russo's work also makes clear that JFK's and RFK's imminent anti-Castro plans were an open secret within both anti-Castro and pro-Castro communities to which Oswald would have had acess. Moreover, Castro's warnings against U. S. assassination attempts and possible retaliation by him had been published just days before (September 9). Oswald would not have known that Fate would hand him a golden opportunity less than two months later, but the statement is not implausible. Russo makes a very solid case that all this was in fact Oswald's motivation regardless of whether he was part of anything that might technically qualify as a conspiracy. To quote dear old Ronnie, "There you go again" with your assertions of "no evidence" when what you really mean is "no evidence I will consider because I will not consider anything that might counter my LN dogma."
-
I believe the evidence for Oswald's supposed statement is Gus Russo's G2 sources, about which Ben Cole knows more than I. Russo's work also makes clear that JFK's and RFK's imminent anti-Castro plans were an open secret within both anti-Castro and pro-Castro communities to which Oswald would have had acess. Moreover, Castro's warnings against U. S. assassination attempts and possible retaliation by him had been published just days before (September 9). Oswald would not have known that Fate would hand him a golden opportunity less than two months later, but the statement is not implausible. Russo makes a very solid case that all this was in fact Oswald's motivation regardless of whether he was part of anything that might technically qualify as a conspiracy. To quote dear old Ronnie, "There you go again" with your assertions of "no evidence" when what you really mean is "no evidence I will consider because I will not consider anything that might counter my LN dogma."
So you think Russo's speculation constitutes evidence. That's a strange position for an attorney of 40 years to take.
Anybody who claims to know Oswald's motivation is speculating. IOW guessing. Does Russo offer any real evidence that was Oswald's motive? Does that even matter to you? Or is the fact that it makes for an interesting story a good enough reason to believe it?
-
You are failing even the Pretend Lawyer bar exam, which is difficult to do. Russo is a highly respected researcher and author. The evidence for what he says comprises (1) his interviews with former G2 operatives and (2) his considerable investigation into JFK's and RFK's plans and the extent which they were known in the pro- and anti-Castro communities. You have such a flexible concept of "evidence" that I wish you'd find a different term. When Russo speculates, that is simply informed speculation - but it is evidence-based.
-
You are failing even the Pretend Lawyer bar exam, which is difficult to do. Russo is a highly respected researcher and author. The evidence for what he says comprises (1) his interviews with former G2 operatives and (2) his considerable investigation into JFK's and RFK's plans and the extent which they were known in the pro- and anti-Castro communities. You have such a flexible concept of "evidence" that I wish you'd find a different term. When Russo speculates, that is simply informed speculation - but it is evidence-based.
I'm starting to doubt you were ever a lawyer. You sure don't seem to have a concept of what evidence is?
Just what evidence has he presented to support his speculation. You don't seem to know.
-
I'm starting to doubt you were ever a lawyer. You sure don't seem to have a concept of what evidence is?
Just what evidence has he presented to support his speculation. You don't seem to know.
No, you're not, Fluffy. My legal work, including reported appellate decisions, law review articles and legal fiction, is all over the internet. Here is my first victory in the Arizona Supreme Court some 35 years ago: https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1991/cv-90-0490-pr-2.html. You are earning your way into the A-Hole Pit of Fame, and I halfway suspect that is your purpose here. Your responses are brain dead.
I don't know what your used car salesman's understanding of evidence is, but the concept is quite simple. "Evidence is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/evidence. More generally, evidence is "anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true." You seem to have some peculiar notion that was perhaps unique to the employees of Buddy's Used Car Sales.
I thought you styled yourself as a JFKA researcher, yet you are unfamiliar with Gus Russo's work? Ben has posted some of it here, but all of Russo's work in amply footnoted.
Russo has documented his interviews with G2 operatives who claim to have knowledge of Oswald's statements about JFK and his dealings with G2. Those interviews are evidence; if we had access to the operatives themselves, and I don't know whether we do, that would be even better evidence. He undertook a great deal of investigative work regarding JFK's and RFK's imminent anti-Castro plans and the extent to which they were an open secret in segments of both the pro- and anti-Castro movements. What he discovered during his investigative work is evidence. The publication of Castro's warning to the Kennedys is a matter of historical fact. As previously stated, in both the law and everyday life, we are allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.
How credible Russo's evidence is, and what weight should be attached to it, are different questions from whether it is evidence at all. It is evidence.
In your confusion, you seem to waft between a strict courtroom standard of relevant and admissible evidence, which is pretty much irrelevant at this point (as Martin has pointed out) and a more general but seemingly muddled understanding of evidence that is not entirely clear to me. With all your tedious and tiresome posts, the bottom line seems to be "Evidence is whatever I decide it is in any particular post, and if it runs counter to anything in the LN narrative then it is, ipso facto, not evidence." It's quite bizarre that you are seemingly oblivious to the game you are so obviously playing, which is what makes me suspect that your actual purpose here is simply "being an a-hole." I enjoy playing the role of curmudgeonly contrarian myself, but I generally try to stop short of looking like fool.
-
I ask for evidence and you give me a big fat IF. Since when do unsworn hearsay statements become evidence. Do you even understand what constitutes evidence? You sure haven't given any indication that you do.
I just noticed this on the other thread in which I referenced mob lawyer Ragano's claims. It illustrates your confusion, or possibly your feigned confusion. I got news for ya: As Martin pointed out, we are w-a-y past the point of trying to apply the Criminal Rules of Evidence to the JFKA. There ain't ever gonna be a trial. There never was a trial. The WC was not a trial. The WC operated according to some wacky Pretend Rules of Evidence where they sorta-kinda went through the motions, but there was no one to object to anything. It was more like an administrative hearing where the Rules of Evidence are relaxed to the point of nonexistence (kind of like Buddy's Used Car Sales, I would guess, where the odometer reading on that 1974 Maverick was only marginally evidential). Even in an administrative hearing, however, there are two opposing sides to keep things honest.
Suddenly your definition of evidence would exclude "unsworn hearsay statements" (whatever that is supposed to mean) as though we were in some JFKA trial in 2026. You may or may not know from your rapt attention to Episode #47 of Perry Mason, but Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence contains 24 exceptions to the prohibition against hearsay, while Rule 807 contains an exception so wide as to almost swallow the prohibition. In any event, Ragano was in fact the lawyer for Hoffa, Trafficante and Marcello. He told a pretty consistent story, including under oath. Much as you might disagree because you don't know what you're talking about, what he said is evidence out here in the real world. We are entitled to attach such credibility and weight to Ragano's story as we wish and to draw such inferences as seem reasonable to us, and you are free to disagree. It's as simple as that.
-
I just noticed this on the other thread in which I referenced mob lawyer Ragano's claims. It illustrates your confusion, or possibly your feigned confusion. I got news for ya: As Martin pointed out, we are w-a-y past the point of trying to apply the Criminal Rules of Evidence to the JFKA.
I guess we're in the let's-just-throw=crap=against-the wall-and-see-what-sticks phase. The Cts have been stuck in that phase for decades. While there are no rules of evidence governing what can be introduced, if you want to make a compelling argument, you need offer compelling evidence for your arguments. So far you have struck out in that department. All you can give us is speculaiton.
There ain't ever gonna be a trial. There never was a trial. The WC was not a trial.
No it wasn't. It was a fact finding body that did it's job extremely well. But that doesn't stop the CTs from using the inadmissable excuse when it suits them, arguing that damning evidence against Oswald would have been inadmissable at trial. It seems like they are trying get Oswald off on a technicality.
The WC operated according to some wacky Pretend Rules of Evidence where they sorta-kinda went through the motions, but there was no one to object to anything.
Thank you for illustrating the point I just made. You want to object to the evidence against Oswald on imaginary grounds yet you are more than willing to introduce things that wouldn't remotely be considered by any court in the land. As I pointed out, the WC was not conducting a trial. It was a fact finding body, not an adversarial proceeding. If you know a lawyer, maybe he can explain the difference to you.
It was more like an administrative hearing where the Rules of Evidence are relaxed to the point of nonexistence (kind of like Buddy's Used Car Sales, I would guess, where the odometer reading on that 1974 Maverick was only marginally evidential). Even in an administrative hearing, however, there are two opposing sides to keep things honest.
So here's where you get to throw out accusations without any evidence to support it. Give us one example where the WC tampered with or falsified evidence. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
Suddenly your definition of evidence would exclude "unsworn hearsay statements" (whatever that is supposed to mean)
If you have a lawyer friend, ask him to explain those terms to you.
as though we were in some JFKA trial in 2026. You may or may not know from your rapt attention to Episode #47 of Perry Mason, but Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence contains 24 exceptions to the prohibition against hearsay, while Rule 807 contains an exception so wide as to almost swallow the prohibition. In any event, Ragano was in fact the lawyer for Hoffa, Trafficante and Marcello. He told a pretty consistent story, including under oath. Much as you might disagree because you don't know what you're talking about, what he said is evidence out here in the real world. We are entitled to attach such credibility and weight to Ragano's story as we wish and to draw such inferences as seem reasonable to us, and you are free to disagree. It's as simple as that.
So tell us specifically what he said that is evidence any of these organized crime figures conspired with Oswald to kill JFK.
-
You are failing even the Pretend Lawyer bar exam, which is difficult to do. Russo is a highly respected researcher and author. The evidence for what he says comprises (1) his interviews with former G2 operatives and (2) his considerable investigation into JFK's and RFK's plans and the extent which they were known in the pro- and anti-Castro communities. You have such a flexible concept of "evidence" that I wish you'd find a different term. When Russo speculates, that is simply informed speculation - but it is evidence-based.
So tell us what evidence he based his speculation on.