(PART 1012)


"Lone Nut Theorists" have one thing in common. They all abuse the US Constitution. The guaranteed right it gives us of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts.

The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

Lee Harvey Oswald was never even properly criminally charged with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Those who continue to label him as an assassin and/or the killer of JFK are demeaning the very Constitutional rights that they exploit in the process. The requirement that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a crime in order to convict a defendant is no exception.

The burden of proof imposed on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence granted every defendant are based on the "Due Process" Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.


That's a pretty big generalization, Gary. When the evidence points squarely at Oswald, who should be blamed? He will obviously never be tried and convicted, but I for one can't dismiss his guilt because he was killed before being brought to trial.

For me, the infamous "them", or the equally blatant smearing of other men's reputations (LBJ, Bush Sr. etc.) that is offered up by the conspiracy theorists is no better. For me, it's what does the evidence show? It points directly at Lee Harvey Oswald. That cannot be ignored.


Oswald was arraigned for JFK's murder. And was killed so he could not go to trial. The presumption of innocence is a creature of law where the rules apply in the courtroom and do not apply in the Court of Public Opinion.


Gary states "Lone Nut Theorists" have one thing in common. They all abuse the US Constitution.

My response: If someone makes an assumption of guilt without any merit, they have violated the presumption of innocence. But, if someone examines the available information and believes it is irrefutable evidence of guilt, they are not -- especially since we have never seen a trial and one is not likely. I don't think it intentional to be unlawful. However, that said, using "alleged shooter" is much more correct.


I just don't see how a reasonable person who has examined even HALF of the evidence in this case can hold the belief that Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt (in TWO murders) has NOT been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.


As I have said to many over the last 38 years: I find no fault in those who believe Oswald killed JFK because of the consistent and mind-blowing propaganda and dis-information campaign operated by the authorities of that time.

That operation has continued, to some degree, however, people like myself, who actually investigated the assassination, found its bizarre and obvious mis-handling by those who were responsible to see justice done to be nothing less than outrageous. Those are the devils in the details.


But those "details" that you devilish CTers love so much can easily be manipulated and RE-interpreted to mean things that the CTer WANT them to mean. Take the Katzenbach memo as one such example. And certain witness testimony as another---Lee Bowers, for example. And Bill Newman.

Conspiracy theorists have been propping up those two witnesses for decades in an effort to "prove" that a gunman was on the Grassy Knoll. But when we examine the testimony and public statements of Bowers and Newman further, we can really see that neither witness "proves" that a shooter was on the Knoll. Far from it.

In fact, William Newman is actually a pretty good "LN" type of witness when we decide to actually LISTEN to Mr. Newman's explanation of what he saw and heard in Dealey Plaza (versus just merely accepting the garbage printed in conspiracy books written by people like Mark Lane and others).

So, yes, I agree that the "details" are important. But conspiracy theorists, in my opinion, are much more inclined to misinterpret and/or deliberately mangle those "details" than are lone-assassin believers. And Bill Newman is a perfect example, as we can see right here.


My research has led me to discover that in terms of manipulation, misquoting, lying, it's not the government, it's been the CT authors. Your example, David, of the Katzenbach letter is a prime example.

But for me the biggest lie is the manipulation of the seating positions regarding the single bullet. That is outrageous.


Precisely right, Paul. I think it was Bob Groden on a radio show not that many years ago who was still insisting that John Connally was sitting DIRECTLY in front of JFK when the shooting occurred. Even though Groden had undoubtedly seen the Hess & Eisenhardt limo diagram published by the HSCA, which shows that Connally's jump seat was located somewhat INBOARD in relation to Kennedy's back seat. (Not to mention the many photos and films taken on November 22 which verify that Connally was definitely sitting INBOARD and LOWER than President Kennedy in the car.)

Plus, we know from the photos that JFK was pretty much jammed as far as humanly possible to the RIGHT in his seat (so that he could comfortably rest his right arm on the top of the door frame and easily wave to the large crowds in Dallas).

So that fact (JFK being as FAR RIGHT in his seat as he possibly could be) makes for an even more pronounced "Kennedy Was Sitting To The RIGHT Of Connally" seating arrangement on 11/22/63. But many CTers still like to drag out the old myth about how the bullet couldn't have gone through both victims because Connally wasn't sitting to JFK's left at all.

The devil's in the details alright. And just look at what some CTers have done to that "seating arrangement" detail. They've mangled it to fit their needs. (Just ask Oliver Stone.)

David Von Pein
August 30, 2015