Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (31 page)

He then discussed his conclusion as he stated to the media at the time, first indicating that if he was “forced to the wall” he would conclude that there was no conspiracy because bullet holes could be explained with an alternative hypothesis (even though this contradicts the first statement quoted above), but on the other hand, that that conclusion would not necessarily be the final word (RH Endnotes 551):

If I were forced to the wall, I’d say there was no conspiracy, that the additional bullets and bullet holes can be accounted for by the existence of fragments and ricochets . . . I reiterated that in the absence of official contravening evidence, we were talking about too many bullets for Sirhan to have fired them all.

While Bugliosi most likely did not believe in a conspiracy in the assassination of Robert Kennedy (notwithstanding his contradictory statements), his central point stands:
if
the evidence demonstrates that more bullets were fired than
could
have been fired by the assassin — and there is no plausible alternative explanation or evidence to the contrary — then this would be
proof
of conspiracy, and one’s beliefs should be modified accordingly.

ELEMENT TWO

All of the shots fired at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 were fired from the sixth-floor southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository, and from no other location.

The Warren Commission claimed that at the time of the assassination, Oswald was at the sixth floor southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository. Since Oswald could not be in two places at one time, if there
were
shots fired from another location, the element would positively be disproven, and likewise the
Lone Gunman
proposition with which it is irrevocably associated.

ELEMENT THREE

Lee Harvey Oswald was the
only
person on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963.

The Warren Commission claimed that Oswald was the only person on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the assassination. If another person was on the southern side of the sixth floor, this individual could have aided Oswald, and also could have fired the shots. An accomplice = conspiracy.

ELEMENT FOUR

The shots fired at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 were fired from no other weapons besides Lee Harvey Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano.

According to the Warren Commission, Oswald had one and only one weapon, a 40” Mannlicher-Carcano. Even if Oswald had more than one weapon, he would not have had time (and obviously no inclination) to switch back and forth between weapons in the time within which the shots were fired. Accordingly, if there is evidence to show that other weapons besides Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano were used, the element would be positively disproven, and so would the proposition.

ELEMENT FIVE

A rifleman could plausibly have fired 3 separate shots from the Mannlicher-Carcano within the elapsed time of the shooting and corresponding with the keyframes of the Zapruder film.

The Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly owned and used by Oswald was not a rapid-fire machine gun. Before a bullet could be fired, the bolt had to be manually operated to place the bullet in the chamber before firing. This could only be done at a certain speed.

The Warren Commission estimated that the rifle could be fired no faster than 2.3 seconds between shots. Accordingly, all the shots that Oswald allegedly made had to be physically possible within the beginning and end of the shooting sequence. Moreover, the Zapruder film shows the relative timings of the shots to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. If Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets faster than the 2.3 seconds, the element, and therefore the proposition, would be positively disproven.

ELEMENT SIX

There was one and only one bullet which struck Governor Connally, and that bullet (identified as CE 399) first passed through the body of President Kennedy.

The Warren Commission created a concept known as the
Single Bullet Theory
because it was not physically possible (based on the Zapruder film) for Oswald to make two separate shots in the time frame established by the film. The bullet which ostensibly achieved this feat was allegedly found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, and was identified by the Warren Commission as Commission Exhibit 399, abbreviated as CE 399. If it can be shown that the
Single Bullet Theory
is invalid because no bullet passed through the body of President Kennedy, subsequently striking Governor Connally, the proposition would positively be disproven.

The foregoing analysis has demonstrated why these elements of the
Proposition One
are necessary. Now let’s move to the elements of the
Proposition Two
.

Note to the reader: As of this writing in 2012, the volume that will contain the analysis on Proposition Two, Volume 4, is currently in the research stages. Consequently, the elements for Proposition Two are subject to change.

PROPOSITION TWO
Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

ELEMENT ONE
The key evidence in the case actually connects Lee Harvey Oswald to the assassination.

ELEMENT TWO
Lee Harvey Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which it was alleged that the shots were fired (the sixth floor of the southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository), and the weapon purported to be Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm Italian rifle was in Oswald’s possession at the time it was fired.

ELEMENT THREE
A rifleman of Lee Harvey Oswald’s capabilities could plausibly have fired 3 separate shots using the Mannlicher-Carcano within the elapsed time of the shooting and with the requisite accuracy required.

ELEMENT FOUR
Lee Harvey Oswald was not framed for the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

ELEMENT ONE

The key evidence in the case actually connects Lee Harvey Oswald to the assassination.

Under normal circumstances, evidence related to this element would be incorporated as background for the legal assumption and discussed in the next two elements, but as you will see, extraordinary issues with the quality and quantity of evidence for this Proposition entails giving it its own element; analyzing all the evidence
together
will reveal a pattern of
inauthenticity
and
inherent unreliability
. To this latter point, if the evidence is so unreliable it won’t be admissible, we won’t get to court, and the buck stops here.

Under this element, we seek to ask two questions:

1. Even
   if
   the evidence is authentic, does it necessarily prove the claim with which it is associated?
   
2. Is
   the evidence authentic?
   

Let’s go to the first question. You should know that even authentic evidence does not necessarily achieve what its proponents claim that it does. Take these two examples of evidence provided as proof that Oswald was located on the floor of the depository at 12:30 p.m.:

1. A witness claimed to observe Oswald at the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Depository at 12:30 p.m..
   
2. One or more fingerprints of Oswald were on the boxes in that area of the depository.
   

Looks pretty bad for Oswald, doesn’t it? Well, not so fast. To understand why, it is helpful to first understand the difference between
direct
and
circumstantial
evidence.

The distinction is fairly simple:
direct
evidence supports the truth of an assertion
directly
, i.e., without an intervening inference.
Circumstantial
evidence, by contrast, requires one or more
intervening inference(s)
to support the truth of the assertion.

Below are two examples of direct evidence:

• Eyewitness Identifications
  
• Confessions
  

And here are examples of circumstantial evidence: