RON ECKER SAID:
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy. Enough for any "reasonable" person to conclude there was more than one shooter.
GLENN NALL SAID:
The LNers apparently do not consider "circumstantial evidence" of any degree, in any amount, no matter how mathematically improbable, to be evidence -- EVEN THOUGH there are thousands of guilty people in prison strictly because of this same type of evidence -- purely circumstantial, though convincing to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I would maintain that conspiracy theorists do more denying of "circumstantial evidence" of Oswald's lone guilt than the LNers do of ignoring any circumstantial evidence of conspiracy.
A good example, I think, of how conspiracists disregard circumstantial evidence that does not favor their beliefs in a conspiracy is when discussing Lee Harvey Oswald's actions and movements on both November 21 and 22, 1963. The provable things that Oswald did on each of those days have created a whole lot of "circumstantial evidence" of his LONE guilt in the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Officer Tippit.
Such as:
LHO's unusual Thursday trip to Irving to supposedly pick up "curtain rods" (yeah, right). The "curtain rod" excuse has been proven to be nothing but a complete lie on Oswald's behalf. And everyone needs to ask themselves: WHY would he lie about something like that if it wasn't to hide some kind of criminal activity that other evidence proves he WAS involved in the following day?
Plus: Oswald's movements right after the assassination, which show "flight" from the scene of the crime. And those movements are SOLO movements. Not a co-conspirator in sight. Oswald was hoofin' it ON HIS OWN after the assassination.
Plus there's the murder of J.D. Tippit -- committed by ONE LONE GUNMAN on Tenth Street (unless we want to believe Acquilla Clemmons' account of the shooting instead of accepting the observations of the multiple other witnesses who all said that there was only ONE gunman involved).
And then there's Oswald's incredibly "guilty-like" actions inside the movie theater, and the things he said to the police both inside the theater and in the police car on the way to City Hall, which are all things that reek of Oswald's guilty state of mind.
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/They Say It Just Takes A Second To Die
But when I argue with conspiracy believers on the Internet about any of the above items of "circumstantial evidence", I get the sense that those CTers look upon those items as being things that somehow (and incredibly) lead more toward Oswald's complete innocence than they do in leading toward his guilt in the murders of either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
Sure, there are some pieces of circumstantial evidence that, when isolated and never researched and examined any further, would make someone cry "Conspiracy!". But, as I say, when those things are removed from their "isolated" condition and placed back into the "sum total" of evidence in this case, then all thoughts of "conspiracy" vanish into a puff of S.M. Holland's smoke (even Holland's and other witnesses' "smoke" doesn't hold up under additional scrutiny, given the weight of all the other evidence that indicates there was no gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll).
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Isolating Evidence
Another example of CT "isolation" --- the several Dealey Plaza witnesses who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll area....
When ISOLATED, those witnesses seem to be providing pretty powerful evidence in favor of a conspiracy. But when putting their "Grassy Knoll" testimony up against all the other witness testimony (and when factoring in the very important and often overlooked "Multiple Directions" factor that I discuss in my article linked below), those "Grassy Knoll" witnesses don't seem nearly as solid or convincing....
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
I think it's also kind of interesting that both Ron Ecker and Glenn Nall in this Education Forum thread have emphasized only the words "circumstantial evidence" to promote their claims of conspiracy in the JFK case. No "physical evidence" at all. And that's because, of course, there is no PHYSICAL evidence that supports conspiracy in this case. None. Not a piece. Therefore, the only thing CTers can turn to is "circumstantial evidence".
Now, I'm not saying all circumstantial evidence that tends to lead toward conspiracy should just be summarily dismissed and tossed in the trash. And as for me personally, I don't think I have dismissed such evidence in such a manner. I think I have debunked much of the "circumstantial evidence" of conspiracy by using sound methods of logic and common sense--plus by UN-isolating (if I may coin a phrase) that circumstantial evidence and placing it back into a framework of the TOTALITY of all evidence (like in the "Earwitnesses" example cited earlier).
But I do also think it's rather remarkable that the ENTIRE alleged "case for conspiracy" does, indeed, boil down to ONLY circumstantial evidence. No physical evidence at all. And in a case of this size and magnitude (and multiplied by THREE murders, including the murders of Tippit and Oswald himself), to have not a speck of physical evidence to support a contention of conspiracy is, in my opinion, rather telling.
David Von Pein
June 5, 2015
