conspiracy theorists have no case

Rating: 3/10 (14 June 2011)

This film states emphatically that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, but could this be demonstrated in court? Remember, the murder of JFK was a crime. We settle criminal matters in court. Did the Warren Commission give us a substantial criminal case? Yes. We have: a suspect (Lee Harvey Oswald); his gun, shells and fingerprints; ballistics tests; autopsy evidence; witnesses who heard shots from the Depository and saw a gunman who looked like Oswald in the window; Oswald's presence at the scene of the crime; the long thin paper- wrapped package he brought to work that day; several reenactments that proved someone with Oswald's military training could have committed the crime, and that one bullet could have wounded both JFK and Gov. Connally; Oswald's actions after the murder (he fled the scene, went home, got his handgun, shot and killed a Dallas police officer); etc. Can this evidence be questioned? Of course! Certainly, Oswald's attorney would have done so in court. But the fact remains that a solid criminal case exists against Oswald. Every day, people are convicted on less evidence (I know; I have served on criminal-case juries three times). By contrast, conspiracy theorists have no suspect, no gun, no shells or fingerprints or ballistics evidence or a paper or money trail -- they have no case that could be presented in court. To the argument "We could present a case, but the evidence we need is locked up," I reply: how do you know what this locked-up evidence says? What would you tell a judge: we know someone other than Oswald killed JFK, but we can't name the killer or present any actual evidence? The judge would throw you out of court, as the real-life jury did with the real-life Jim Garrison. This film, which is reasonably well done as a movie, is nothing more than fantasy entertainment. Please don't think it gives us some actual truth.