Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (56 page)

If you know in advance that millions of people will be exposed to this frame, through newspapers, radio, and television, you are good to go.

Of course, on the outside chance that certain members of the media themselves would not cooperate, anyone who would order the murder of a President would most likely have a backup plan to take care of any contingencies like that — right?

So, as we close off this section, let’s review what we’ve learned:

• That there were only
  two
  , and not
  three
  , shells on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building is indicated not only by the early documentary evidence, including receipts and photographs, but also by a deductive proof related to the chain of custody based on the April 22 testimony of J.C. Day (as modified to the extent possible by Day’s June 23 affidavit).
  
• The deductive proof results in a
  checkmate
  for
  The Case Against Oswald
  ; if the aforementioned testimony is
  true
  , then there is no Case Against Oswald, and if it is
  false
  , then there is no Case Against Oswald.
  
• These two shells were turned over by a member of the Dallas Police Department to the FBI without explicit orders transferring jurisdiction, which would entail a level of coordination that is not formally explainable.
  
• Because there is a deductive proof that there were only
  two
  shells on the sixth floor, then all the testimony to the contrary indicates coordinated disinformation that by itself throws into doubt the credibility of all the evidence in the case, not just that related to the empty shells.
  
• Chain of custody issues related to the Brown and Williams possession (as well as the Day testimony) indicate that
  at least two
  of the shells that became Warren Commission exhibits were not those found on the floor of the Texas School Book Depository, a second deductive proof.
  
• There is evidence on record that the Warren Commission misreported testimony, which if true would in and of itself obliterate faith in
  any
  evidence.
  
• Evidence against Oswald, when it can be demonstrated to be manufactured, is
  automatically
  converted into evidence for a conspiracy designed to hide the identity of the true assassins of the President, to allow these individuals to literally get away with murder — a crime for which there is no statute of limitations. And when the victim is the President of the United States, even more so than for any other person,
  this simply cannot be allowed.
  

To this last point, we now need to adopt a new attitude as we move through this book, and think in stereo. As we view the evidence, we need to see it from
two
perspectives:

Is this evidence
for
or
against
the elements of
The Case Against Oswald
?
AND
Is this evidence
for
or
against
the notion that there was a conspiracy to cover up the identity of the true assassins of the President, with both witting and unwitting participants?

To answer this latter question, we ought to heed these words of wisdom from Vincent Bugliosi (RH 1439):

A conspiracy is nothing more than a criminal partnership. And although conspiracies obviously aren’t proved by the transcript of a stenographer who typed up a conversation between the partners agreeing to commit the crime, there has to be some substantive evidence of the conspiracy or partnership’s existence.
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
.

In this excerpt, we learn something important. The conspirators to murder the President (or to hide the true identity of his assassins) are not likely to be publishing their internal memos, such as existed. They didn’t have court reporters present to record their conversations, nor tape recorders. So, how do we prove conspiracy? Through the existence of “circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference of concert or meeting of the minds could be made.” Synchronized misstatements, planted evidence, forged documents, conclusions that violate the laws of physics: if we can see a pattern of improbable persuasion as we make our way through this book, we are able to rule out mere negligence as a hypothesis, and through sheer volume, are able to detect the presence of an “invisible hand” guiding otherwise innocent parties down a predetermined path.

So, both camps, the ones who maintain that Oswald is innocent, and the ones who maintain that Oswald is guilty, are in the same boat: forget claims, forget stipulations, and focus on
evidence
! And, when you analyze the evidence, look at it from the standpoint of
logic and intuition
: does this evidence
really
make sense?

To this point, we will let Mr. Bugliosi have the final word (RH 1437; emphasis supplied):

If . . . there is no evidence to support your allegation, from a legal standpoint you’re out of court.
But even if you’re out of court, if you can at least argue that “well, there’s no evidence of this, but logic and common sense tell you it is so,” you still have talking rights and you can still play the game, as it were.
But when you not only have no evidence, but logic and common sense tell you it isn’t so, it’s time to fold your tent. No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life.

My sentiments exactly, Mr. Bugliosi. Let’s take a look at rest of the evidence, and see what it has to tell us.