# Any Kennedy conspiracy theorists in here? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 10, 2001, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298 "2001-01-10T06:10:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/41 "2001-01-11T17:38:17Z")
Posner disputes quite a few things in the Warren Report, **Gadarene**. Most prominently, the WR’s conclusion that LHO’s first and third shots hit the president–Posner convincingly argues for second and third. I don’t think concluding that “official documents” are incorrect is any worse than concluding that individual witnesses are incorrect. After all, those official documents are put together by interviewing witnesses, examining physical evidence, etc. In other words, they’re also prone to human error and biases, and may be rejected when further evidence converges on the conclusion that they’re wrong. If you want a good take on the alleged errors in _Case Closed_, take a look at [this site](http://bfn.org/~ck260/defend.htm), which I came across last spring and amazingly was able to track down again. Yes, he makes some factual errors, but they are on trifling matters that do not affect the big picture. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/42 "2001-01-11T17:50:01Z")
Fair 'nuff, **minty**. Tell you what–if you’ll read _Plausible Denial_ and reread _Rush to Judgment_, I’ll read _Case Closed_. Then we can compare notes. I’m enjoying the fact that we can have a civil discussion about stuff like this even when disagreeing. Deal? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/43 "2001-01-11T18:03:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\*Fair 'nuff, **minty**. Tell you what–if you’ll read _Plausible Denial_ and reread _Rush to Judgment_, I’ll read _Case Closed_. Then we can compare notes. I’m enjoying the fact that we can have a civil discussion about stuff like this even when disagreeing. > > Deal? 🙂 \*\* Well, if **minty** won’t, I’ll take you up on that, **Gad**. (Nothing like a good crackpot theory to get your juices going!) ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/44 "2001-01-11T18:19:23Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think it was Oswald all by himself Definitely not, especially by today’s standards. You need to include the rifle manufacturer, the mail-order company, and probably the postal delivery person who delivered it (but I’d be a little reluctant about indicting that one). I would also invite everyone to check out the exellent forgotten movie **Executive Action** , which coalesced all the crackpot conspiracy theories together in one movie–two decades before Oliver Stone’s mammoth opus **JFK**. IIRC, the lead “real” assassin was portrayed by beady-eyed-heel-at-large Ed Lauter. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/45 "2001-01-11T18:24:56Z")
Sounds good, **xeno**! There are several editions of _Rush to Judgment_; I’m unsure of the differences between them, but I’ve got the second edition (1967?). Let me know which one you’re able to find. > [@](#): > > (Nothing like a good crackpot theory to get your juices going!) I feel the same way about Posner… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/46 "2001-01-11T19:21:08Z")
I’ll see if I can round up a copy of _Rush to Judgment_. Amazon says it’s unavailable, but I’d bet it’s still in bookstores. If we’re going to have a knowledgeable conversation, though, I’d prefer to stay away from _Plausible Denial_, since it goes way outside the basic details of the assassination. Sorry, but I have little knowledge of the details of the various proposed conspiracies, so I couldn’t evaluate Lane’s theory very knowledgeably. _Rush to Judgment_ is at least focused on things that I’ve read about elsewhere. Hey, maybe I can go down to the Half-Price Books on Guadalupe here in Austin and relive that great scene from _Slacker_ where the conspiracy buff tries to impress girls with his critical reviews of all the assassination books. What fun! ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/47 "2001-01-11T19:52:38Z")
I think you’d be surprised at how relevant _Plausible Denial_ is; and it goes a long way, in my opinion, in establishing Lane as someone who attempts to be a rigorous critical thinker. Think of it, if you will, as a follow-up to _Rush to Judgment_, two decades later. I’d also like to see whether or not Posner touches upon issues raised in _Plausible Denial_. If so, it’s helpful to compare the contesting claims; if not, it provides a counterpoint to the ostensibly comprehensive nature of _Case Closed._ C’mon, **minty**. Read _Plausible Denial_. Everybody’s doing it… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/48 "2001-01-11T21:08:17Z")
_Case Closed_ does not purport to comprehensively debunk every conspiracy theory out there. There are far too many, although Posner does deal with the more popular theories in a couple of chapters towards the end. And he absolutely destroys Jim Garrison, who thoroughly deserved it, even posthumously. But if we’re going to attempt to seriously debate the JFK assassination (which I don’t mind at all–fascinating history and sociology here), I think it would work best if we start with the evidence of the crime itself. That’s the major focus of both _Case Closed_ and _Rush to Judgment_. In my view, there’s no useful purpose in trying to place Jack Ruby, David Ferrie, Charles Harrelson, and George DeMorenshildt together in a secret basement at Illuminati HQ unless an inquiry first shows that there are good reasons to believe that a conspiracy was involved. In other words, I could give a rat’s ass who Mark Lane thinks conspired to kill JFK unless the evidence shows that a conspiracy was involved in the first place. Hence, no _Plausible Denial_ for me, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/49 "2001-01-11T22:02:37Z")
_shrug_ You seem to be missing the fact that _Plausible Denial_ is in large part “evidence of the crime itself,” unless you’re confining the crime specifically to the discrete events at Dealey Plaza, which in my view would be shortsighted. In my view, _Rush to Judgment_ is a response to the Warren Report, while _Plausible Denial_ is an affirmative defense of the notion of conspiracy–complete with evidence–from someone who showed in his first book that he knows a little of what he’s talking about. And though it may be irrelevant and/or incidental, the fact that the jury in the Hunt/Spotlight trial found for Lane’s defense is interesting at the very least. > [@](#): > > In other words, I could give a rat’s ass who Mark Lane thinks conspired to kill JFK unless the evidence shows that a conspiracy was involved in the first place. This seems to be a circular argument insofar as I’m not prepared at the moment to lend credence to any conspiracy theorist _other_ than Mark Lane. The evidence that you’re asking for–or at least questions which raise the possibility of that evidence–exists in _Plausible Denial_. The book is, in fact, much more an attempt to document than an attempt to theorize. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/50 "2001-01-11T22:24:38Z")
Yes, I am, for the moment, confining my inquiry here primarily to the evidence related to the assassination itself. _RTJ_ looks to me like its purpose is to answer the question of who was involved in the conspiracy. I’m in no hurry to answer that question–even if it’s limited to the one Lane proposed–unless a conspiracy is first demonstrated to exist. Otherwise, we’re getting way ahead of ourselves. Admittedly, that’s a popular pastime in the JFK community… Besides, I’m only making you read _one_ book! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/51 "2001-01-11T22:30:32Z")
When debating the JFK assassination, the two sides like to take different approaches. The pro-conspiracy side overwhelms you with factoids, innuendos, speculation, and eventually paranoia. The tactic of the pro-conspiracy side is to apply maximum skepticism to the opponent’s claims, while maximum gullibility to your own claims. If the lone-gunman side attempts to argue at the level of individual facts, the debate will become mired and will stalemate, regardless of who has the better facts. The true argument against the conspiracy theories is not one of facts. It is one that looks at the big picture. Consider this: As with many other areas of psuedoscience, a good test of the conspiracy theories is to ask “after so many years of studying, have we made any definite progress? Are there things that we now know for sure, that we didn’t know before?” If the answer is no, then you are probably studying something that does not exist. There is no commonly accepted conspiracy theory. There is not even a semblence of one, the conspiracy community can pretty much only agree that the Warren Report was bad. Anything else there is no agreement on. Imagine for a minute that there truly was a conspiracy. Surely by now people would have started to gather a few facts about it. People might have started talking. Physical evidence might have been found. Eventually, people would realize that the Cubans arranged it. Or the CIA. Or the Mafia. Or perhaps some new information would allow us to pinpoint or name of the shooters. Things would sooner or later get patched together. The conspiracy would be found out. The previous paragraph is a completely opposite description of what is actually happening. There is no coherent story with anything remotely close to the level of factual support the lone-gunman theory has. Right now, if you had to make a decision, there’s basically no choice. The lone-gunman theory has all of the cards. As far as holes in the theory go… well anyone can find holes in any sufficiently complex phenomenon. Whether the holes exist or not is impossible to say. Consider the people claiming that man never walked on the moon. Or the holocaust never happened. These people have a mound of “facts” to back up their claims. The conspiracy mongers are no different. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/52 "2001-01-11T23:26:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Avumede \* > Imagine for a minute that there truly was a conspiracy. Surely by now people would have started to gather a few facts about it. People might have started talking. Physical evidence might have been found. Eventually, people would realize that the Cubans arranged it. Or the CIA. Or the Mafia. Or perhaps some new information would allow us to pinpoint or name of the shooters. Things would sooner or later get patched together. The conspiracy would be found out. _cough_ In _Plausible Denial_, Mark Lane purports to have collected some names, some facts, and some of exactly the sort of things you describe. I’m not saying his collection is accurate. It is disingenuous, however, to say that no concrete information has been presented when concrete information _has_ been presented and either ignored or deemed illegitimate–without, from what I’ve so far seen, a reasonable refutation. What sort of evidence, exactly, would you deem convincing or conclusive? ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2001, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/53 "2001-01-11T23:51:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > _cough_ In _Plausible Denial_, Mark Lane purports to have collected some names, some facts, and some of exactly the sort of things you describe. I’m not saying his collection is accurate. It is disingenuous, however, to say that no concrete information has been presented when concrete information _has_ been presented and either ignored or deemed illegitimate–without, from what I’ve so far seen, a reasonable refutation. > > What sort of evidence, exactly, would you deem convincing or conclusive? I haven’t read Lane’s book. What’s the nature of his evidence? Why don’t at least all the conspiracy buffs accept it? The evidence for the lone-gunman theory is overwhelming. The Warren Report is so huge almost no one has read the whole thing. Given the nature of the case, with so many people that say so many often contradictory things, I’d say any opposing theory has to have at least some physical evidence that supports it (and doesn’t also support the lone-gunmany theory). Bullets. Fingerprints. Guns. As far as testimony goes, I’d like to see a lot of it, from many different people, all in agreement of something specific and meaningful. I’d like to see an explanation of all the amazing events of that day that is plausible. For example, why did Oswald flee and shoot a cop if he was innocent? Does Lane’s book fit the bill? Even if it does, that doesn’t mean I necessarily believe it. But it would intrigue me. I may want to look into it. Now that I’ve answered your questions on what it would take to make me take the conspiracy viewpoint seriously, what would it take for you to take the lone-gunman viewpoint seriously. OK, so you’ve read a book debunking the Warren Report. I can guarantee that you those conspiracy books has been debunked, either in other books, or in other discussions. I point you to alt.conspiracy.jfk for a good read on the matter. On that board, certain books were debunked so badly that the conspiracy buffs said the authors must be government disinformation plants. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/54 "2001-01-12T00:06:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > It is disingenuous, however, to say that no concrete information has been presented when concrete information _has_ been presented and either ignored or deemed illegitimate–without, from what I’ve so far seen, a reasonable refutation. Just wanted to reply again, because I think you missed my point. Regardless of what evidence has been presented, it has not even become part of a knowledge base about the conspiracy. That’s because there is no set of things that the conspiracy theorists can agree on. No information has not proven itself strongly enough for even the conspiracy theorists to cling to it and say “we can all believe in this evidence, and take it as a starting point to expand our theories”. Anyway, with no evidence strong enough to unite all conspiracy theorists around a single theory, I see no reason to take the whole movement, or any of it’s evidence, seriously. After all, even if I put a lot of effort into debating this, and debunked a particular theory, it wouldn’t mean anything because scores of other theories are still out there, and the theories themselves are so maleable due to lack of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/55 "2001-01-12T00:20:21Z")
Okay, **Gadarene** , here’s the deal. Amazon says _RTJ_ is out of stock, and my local Border’s says it’ll be at least a week before they can get a copy from whoever is distributing it these days. I’ll check Half Price books this weekend for a used copy. But barring that, our Lane-Posner slugfest is going to have to wait a while. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/56 "2001-01-12T00:24:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Avumede \* > Why don’t at least all the conspiracy buffs accept it? _shrug_ 'Cause everyone has their own pet theory, and the truth–whatever that is–gets obscured behind skewed logic and selective use of the facts. > [@](#): > > The evidence for the lone-gunman theory is overwhelming. The Warren Report is so huge almost no one has read the whole thing. Heh…Mark Lane did, and at the very least, _Rush to Judgment_ offers insight into the flawed nature of much of the Warren Report (which, again, doesn’t necessarily invalidate the Report’s conclusions). Even **minty** can attest to the seemingly solid nature of the research in _Rush to Judgment_. Not to seem like a Lane apologist or publicist here or anything, of course. It’s just that most conspiracy buffs are johnny-come-latelys who don’t seem to think critically about the matter; Mark Lane published a theoretical defense brief for Oswald two months after the assassination, and has been–in my opinion–intellectually honest in his desire to explore the facts of the case. > [@](#): > > Given the nature of the case, with so many people that say so many often contradictory things, I’d say any opposing theory has to have at least some physical evidence that supports it (and doesn’t also support the lone-gunmany theory). Bullets. Fingerprints. Guns. Off the top of my head, I’ve read of the bullet mark beneath the overpass and of the confusion within the Warren Report and between the Report and early accounts as to the type of gun found in the Depository. Then there’s the bullet found in the hospital. I’m assuming Posner deals with this stuff in his book, since they’re relatively common components of assassination lore, so I’ll wait to read his debunking. You seem to be under the impression that truth will eventually out; I don’t believe that necessarily to be true. Even the most ardent supporters of the Warren Commission’s findings will admit that this affair has not exactly been the paragon of an open investigation; what makes you think that if (hypothetically) a gun were found today bearing someone else’s fingerprints which matched one of the bullets used to kill Kennedy, that people wouldn’t immediately discredit it? …That question is especially hypothetical because much of the physical evidence of the assassination has, according to official accounts, been misplaced or disposed of. Huh. > [@](#): > > As far as testimony goes, I’d like to see a lot of it, from many different people, all in agreement of something specific and meaningful. I’d like to see an explanation of all the amazing events of that day that is plausible. So would I. I haven’t seen one yet…_including_ the Warren Report. > [@](#): > > For example, why did Oswald flee and shoot a cop if he was innocent? Good question. Are you sure you’re not assuming facts not yet in evidence? > [@](#): > > Does Lane’s book fit the bill? Even if it does, that doesn’t mean I necessarily believe it. But it would intrigue me. I may want to look into it. You should look into it, if for no other reason than to provide a counterpoint to the accepted explanation. It’s always good to test our beliefs against competing alternatives. > [@](#): > > Now that I’ve answered your questions on what it would take to make me take the conspiracy viewpoint seriously, what would it take for you to take the lone-gunman viewpoint seriously. It’s honestly not that I don’t take the lone gunman viewpoint seriously. For all I know, Oswald was the lone assassin and Ruby was a random nut. But in my judgment, that doesn’t quite fit the facts as I’ve so far received them. As difficult as it is for someone to prove a negative, there are assertions I’ve seen which contradict the lone gunman theory for which I have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation. Again, perhaps after I read _Case Closed_ I’ll feel that my doubts have been alleviated. I’ve intentionally put a hell of a lot of qualifiers in my posts on this thread, because I don’t know what happened. I’m not out to prove anything; I only wish to resolve competing sets of evidence in my mind in what seems to be a simple and consistent manner. To the degree that this is possible, of course. > [@](#): > > OK, so you’ve read a book debunking the Warren Report. I can guarantee that you those conspiracy books has been debunked, either in other books, or in other discussions. I point you to alt.conspiracy.jfk for a good read on the matter. On that board, certain books were debunked so badly that the conspiracy buffs said the authors must be government disinformation plants. Do you mean that they’ve been debunked so “poorly” or so “well?” I don’t know if you mean OED bad or Michael Jackson bad. Anyway, not to break out the tinfoil hats, but disinformation campaigns _aren’t_ just some paranoid fantasy of the left. They do happen. Not that they’ve happened in this case, 'cause disinformation against a Usenet group would be pretty damn silly. But given some of the shit our esteemed national intelligence groups have pulled off (COINTELPRO, anyone?), I would say that disinformation in this matter–if, hypothetically, the Warren Report didn’t entirely vet the assassination–wouldn’t be beyond the scope of resource, motivation, or imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/57 "2001-01-12T00:27:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Avumede \* > Anyway, with no evidence strong enough to unite all conspiracy theorists around a single theory, I see no reason to take the whole movement, or any of it’s evidence, seriously. I’d worry about consistency with historical sources and primary documents, myself, rather than consensus within a disparate, fragmented group consisting largely of cynics and nutjobs, when deciding how to render judgment on a particular theory. That’s just me, though. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/58 "2001-01-12T01:06:10Z")
You seem like an honest sort, Gadarene. That’s why I’m actually interested in discussing this with you. 🙂 I actually agree with pretty much everything Avumede said above. However, I also think that bald assertions about who’s right and who’s wrong aren’t going to get anyone very far, as I think you’ve also noticed. That said, there are answers to the factual questions you asked above. Posner deals with them quite well, as you’ll find out. But I’ll summarize: > [@](#): > > Off the top of my head, I’ve read of the bullet mark beneath the overpass Not sure how this raises questions about the WR, but Posner argues that this was the first shot, deflected by the elm tree that obscured LHO’s view during the shot. > [@](#): > > the confusion within the Warren Report and between the Report and early accounts as to the type of gun found in the Depository I assume you mean the statements of a couple people who ID’d the rifle as a Mauser? I don’t find it at all hard to believe that people would misidentify the manufacturer of a rifle, especially one as uncommon as a Mannlicher-Carcano. > [@](#): > > Then there’s the bullet found in the hospital. What about it? I understand there’s some dispute over whether or not it was found on Connally’s stretcher. But it would be a stupid conspiracy indeed that planted a fake bullet before they could have had the slightest idea where all the shots had ended up. If the bullet had still been in Connally’s leg, planting an extra bullet would have proven the existence of a conspiracy. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > For example, why did Oswald flee and shoot a cop if he was innocent? > > Good question. Are you sure you’re not assuming facts not yet in evidence? Several eyewitnesses saw Oswald shoot Tippett. More saw him running away from the scene with a gun in his hand. Altogether, it was about ten people. Six or so identified him in a lineup later that night. Only two of these witnesses were later unable to identify Oswald or disagreed that he was the man they had seen. Again, convergence of evidence points to the conclusion that Oswald was the guy. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/59 "2001-01-12T01:31:33Z")
Pardon me, that was an oak tree that obscured the view. Small detail, of course, but I think accuracy is important here. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298/60 "2001-01-12T06:14:12Z")
**minty:** You seem like an honest sort, too. 🙂 Anyway, let’s save it for the Posner/Lane thread–_Rush to Judgment_ disputes the points you make. Oh, hell, here’s an excerpt dealing with Tippit’s witnesses. Sorry about the length: > [@](#): > > The statements of 13 persons are said by the Report to form the basis of its reconstruction of the Tippit killing and the flight of Tippit’s assailant. However, only 2 of the 13 saw the shooting. For most of its story the Commission relied exclusively on one witness who was often bemused and, when not bemused, unreliable. It overlooked at least ten witnesses and some were also overlooked by the FBI. That agency purportedly ‘conducted approximately 25,000 interviews and reinterviews of persons having information of possible relevance to the investigation,’ and located people who had known Jack Ruby over 30 years ago, but it inexplicably omitted to question an eyewitness [Acquilla Clemons --Gadarene] to the Tippit shooting. For that one paragraph, Lane provides 8 cites. > [@](#): > > The Commission claimed that ‘at least 12 persons saw the man with the revolver in the vicinity of the Tippit crime scene at or immediately after the shooting,’ but it was able to present the testimony of only two who said they had seen the shooting. They were Domingo Benavides and Helen Louise Markham. > [@](#): > > Benavides was not called before the Commission: his deposition was taken by a Commission lawyer in Dallas on April 2, 1964. … In his testimony before Commission counsel, Benavides, the witness nearest to the Tippit murder, stated that after November 22 he had seen pictures of Oswald on television and in the newspapers, yet he steadfastly refused to identify Oswald as the murderer. The Commission itself had to admit that the witness best in the position to describe the killer could not be used against Oswald. … When questioned by police officers on the evening of November 22, Benavides told them that he did not think that he could identify the man who fired the shots. As a result, they did not take him to the police station. Yet the purpose of a lineup is precisely to resolve such doubts. > [@](#): > > The failure of Benavides to identify Oswald left the whole of the Commission’s case in the hands of Helen Louise Markham, who testified in Washington on March 26, 1964. … The Commission took troubl to select fragments from her testimony which appear to substantiate Oswald’s guilt, but it ignored many statements made both by her and by others which invalidated or discredited her testimony. Lane then goes on to quote from Markham’s testimony to the Commission, in which she says _six times_ that she didn’t recognize anyone in the police lineup. He then continues, > [@](#): > > Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he [a professor of Crim Pro at USC] teaches, he next asked his friendly but disconcerting witness, ‘Was there a number two man in there?’ Mrs. Markham replied, ‘Number two is the one I picked.’ Counsel began another question: ‘I thought you just told me that you hadn’t–’, but Mrs. Markham interrupted to answer inexplicably, ‘I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.’ Furthermore, Lane talked with Markham by telephone three weeks before she testified. In that phone conversation, _which Lane recorded_, “she stated that Tippit’s killer was a short man, somewhat on the heavy side, with slightly bushy hair.” These are characteristics, obviously, which in no way match Oswald. When Lane presented this testimony himself before the Commission at their request, they questioned the truth of his statement. Markham herself also denied that she and Lane had ever spoken. After some wrangling between Lane and the Commission, he turned the tape of his conversation over to them: > [@](#): > > Confronted with physical evidence corroborating my testimony, the Commission recalled Mrs. Markham on July 23, 1964. Although counsel questioned her extensively, she continued to deny that she had ever spoken to me. Counsel then told her that ‘we have a tape recording of a conversation that purports to be a conversation between you and Mark Lane on the telephone.’ A tape recorder was found and the tape was played. When she hears the tape (this is all in the Commission’s transcripts), Markham at first denies that it’s her voice on the recording. She then admits that she had the conversation, but said that Lane had said he was from the police department. Then she said that the voice on the recording wasn’t the man she had talked to, even though she admitted that it was her own voice. Then she says it’s not her voice. Then she says “it is my voice, but this man told me he was from the city police.” (Lane, by the way, didn’t say he was from the police.) [quote] The Commission, and the Chief Justice also, conceded that they no longer had any reason to doubt my testimony–at least insofar as it related to Mrs. Markham. The Commission concluded, ‘During her testimony Mrs. Markham initially denied that she ever had the above phone conversation. She has subsequently admitted the existence of the conversation and offered an explanation for her denial.’ However, one must ask–what explanation? The two sentences just quoted constitute the whole of what the Commission had to say in extenuation of Mrs. Markham’s perjury. [quote] These quotes are from pages 149-157 of the second edition of _Rush to Judgment_. So is Lane telling the truth? Got me. It’s sure as hell well-documented, though, and contradicts what you said about Tippit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-kennedy-conspiracy-theorists-in-here/49298.md?page=4)