Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[John Mytton]

26. We know why Oswald shot Kennedy from the Book Depository Building. He worked there. Besides, no better opportunity to kill Kennedy would probably ever come to him. But if a powerful organization like the CIA, KGB, or organized crime, with vast resources at its disposal, decided to kill the president of the United States, obviously it would reconnoiter assassination sites around the country where the president was scheduled to be, searching for the very best one it could find. With this in mind, why in the world would any of these groups have chosen a location for their hit man that had a giant and heavily foliaged oak tree obstructing his view of the president during several of the critical seconds in which he would want to be tracking and shooting the president? And why would they choose to shoot the president at a time when at least 80 percent of his body was concealed and protected by the body of his limousine?
RHVB



JohnM

[Ray Mitcham]

25. Oswald told Marina he didn?t care for his job at the Book Depository Building, and as late as November 9 (Ruth Paine thinks it may have been November 2),65 just thirteen days before the assassination, he applied for a job, per Marina, at ?some photographic? company but did not get it.66 So up to thirteen days before the assassination, or twenty at the most, Oswald sought a job that would have taken him away from his sniper?s nest right above the president?s limousine. Some conspiracy.
RHVB

And some lone assassin. The Bug is doing a great job of proving Oswald was never the gunman. Why would he move jobs if he intended to assassinated the President?

Keep posting John. These are getting better and better.

[Ray Mitcham]

26. We know why Oswald shot Kennedy from the Book Depository Building. He worked there. Besides, no better opportunity to kill Kennedy would probably ever come to him. But if a powerful organization like the CIA, KGB, or organized crime, with vast resources at its disposal, decided to kill the president of the United States, obviously it would reconnoiter assassination sites around the country where the president was scheduled to be, searching for the very best one it could find. With this in mind, why in the world would any of these groups have chosen a location for their hit man that had a giant and heavily foliaged oak tree obstructing his view of the president during several of the critical seconds in which he would want to be tracking and shooting the president? And why would they choose to shoot the president at a time when at least 80 percent of his body was concealed and protected by the body of his limousine?
RHVB



JohnM

 I thought the Bug said he wanted to move jobs. 

[John Iacoletti]

1. Perhaps the most powerful single piece of evidence that there was no conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy is simply the fact that after all these years there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that any of the persons or groups suspected by conspiracy theorists

We'll call this Fallacious Bugliosi Argument 1.

The first fallacy is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The second fallacy is that "credible evidence" is lawyer rhetoric for "I'm dismissing anything that doesn't fit my preconceived conclusion".

Otherwise, all I have to say is "there is no credible evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy" and we're done.

And in the conspiracy prosecutions I have conducted, I have always been able to present direct evidence of the co-conspirators acting in concert before, during, or after the crime, and/or circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference of concert or meeting of the minds could be made.

Oh, you mean like several witnesses reporting having seen Ruby, Tippit, and/or Oswald together prior to November 22?  Yeah, I know, that's not "credible".  Because....reasons.

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #3.  Appeal to ridicule.

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #4 -- strawman.  What "alleged massive conspiracy"?  And there he goes with the "credible" nonsense again.

[Matt Grantham]

 There were certain type of conspiracy theorists who served a purpose Pretty sure LBJ was at least quoted that he believed a larger conspiracy may have existed. This of course was not an especially veiled reference of a Soviet/Cuban conspiracy Yet it served as a most excellent rhetorical function since you could imply a Soviet conspiracy without ever providing the slightest bit of evidence