McCloy's opinion was his, not the opinion of the WCR which stated plainly and unambiguously that the missed shot could have been any of the three shots and they did not indicate a preference for any of them. The WCR should be judged on what it said, not on what people think it said.

Why should LNs be objective. We figured out a long time ago that Oswald killed JFK by himself. It is no longer an open question. Hasn't been for a long, long time.

Actually, Russo co-authored the book with Stephen Molton.

Anyway, your bombastic verbiage -- "forced at gunpoint by a foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy fantasist" -- suggests a severe bias.

Yes it is. A bias toward the truth.

You act as if this is a multiple choice exercise. It's not. There is only one truth.
You seem to have a low bar for whom you consider scholars.
That's right. DVP didn't have trouble figuring this out. It's really pretty obvious Oswald did it and there is no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. Given that the CT have had 62 years to search for evidence that somebody other than Oswald was complicit in the crime and have come up empty, why should anyone entertain the possibility others were involved.
DVD has lots of credibility and anyone who looks at the evidence objectively and applies common sense will reach the same conclusions he has.
You've always seemed to favor quantity over quality. It's reflected in your posts.
I'd estimate the 90+% of those people are ignorant of the evidence of Oswald's guilt and probably got most of their knowledge from Oliver Stone's shitty movie.
Keep clinging to that crap. It's all you have.
The HSCA was a cluster. The only things it got right were the things they agreed with the WC on.
The SBT wins by default because in 62 years, no one has been able to offer a plausible alternative that explains JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's. No one can come up with another explanation that tells us where other shots could have been fired from and the wounds they could have caused. I know you won't be able to. If you could've you would've.
The WC offered several possible scenarios. The consensus of modern LNs conforms to one of those scenarios, that the first shot missed, the second was the single bullet, and the third was the fatal headshot. None of that conflicts with the findings of the WC. The are a few nutty LNs who have come up with goofy alternatives but that is not the fault of the WC.

As for motive, no one can know for sure what Oswald's motive was nor is it necessary to prove why he did it to prove that he did it.

Why should LNs be objective.[?]

Here's one book that very few have read, but one that carries a ring of truth... by one of the three tramps... Chauncey Holt's book,Self-Portrait of a Scoundrel...

Yes.  But there is a difference between what the WC members thought and what they said in the WR.  They said in the WR that the SBT did not matter and was not essential to their conclusion.  But Commission counsel and at least 4 members actually thought it was.  My point was that despite saying that the first, second or third shots may have missed, it was clear from McCloy that he thought the first shot struck both JFK and JBC and was the only shot to strike JBC.  Arlen Specter also thought this because he concluded that Connally was incorrect in thinking he was hit by the second shot.  Here is what he said in Life Magazine in 1966:


All Connally had said is that he was sure he heard the first shot before he felt the impact of the second shot. He never testified that he saw JFK hit by the first shot.  So by saying the Connally was incorrect was saying that Connally was hit by the first shot.  That was the clear impression left by the WC until the HSCA in 1978 suggested that the first shot may have been much earlier and missed, based on the acoustic evidence (which we now know was wrong).

It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed.  If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected.


This snip from the WCR seems to me to be the WC seriously considering whether or not the first shot missed:

When COVID-19 emerged, I suspected its origin was a lab leak in Wuhan, China. I had a lot of reason, but that's another story.

At one point the Columbia Journalism Review, the industry flag-carrier, called the lab leak narrative a "debunked conspiracy theory." The CT'ers were small and ridiculed band.

Later, the lab leak theory became somewhat accepted as the more-likely explanation of the COVID-19 virus.

Lesson: Some CT's hold water, and some do not.

I suspect Charlie Kirk was murdered by a mentally ill lone nut.