I have been messaging John Newman about whether he believes Oswald killed Kennedy, but he's not responding. In his long PBS Frontline program and in his long televised speech on C-SPAN, he didn't say whether Oswald killed Kennedy. He never addressed it. Does he address it in his books?
I haven't read his books, but I have a suspicion about what John Newman thinks about it. I think he thinks that whether or not Oswald killed Kennedy isn't the important thing. The important thing, to John Newman, is that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, and it did involve the CIA.
Just as he is agnostic about whether Oswald went to Mexico City, I suspect he is agnostic about whether Oswald killed Kennedy.
Just think: He introduced himself at the JFK Lancer Conference as a "conspiracy theorist." But, a conspiracy theorist can think Oswald was guilty or innocent. Which is it for him? He didn't say.
So, all John Newman cares about is that it was a conspiracy. If he can talk for an hour and a half about the JFK assassination without stating whether he thinks Oswald was guilty or innocent, it shows he has very little interest in the question. It's not his thing. It's not what he thinks is important. It's not what he wants to talk about.
And something else I realize is this: the reason John Newman gets invited to be on government television (PBS) and C-SPAN is precisely because he doesn't say that Oswald was innocent. If he did, they wouldn't invite him on.
You see, it's OK in America to believe that there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. The government's own investigative Congressional Committee concluded that there was. And if you want to claim that Oswald was a CIA agent and that he was getting $200/month from the FBI, and that he had connections to the Mafia, you can say all that. Just don't say that he didn't kill Kennedy. There is "politically correct" conspiracy theorizing and "politically incorrect" conspiracy theorizing.
I remember in 2013 in the run-up to the 50th, there was a lot of television coverage, and Fox News had a JFK Special that was excitedly pro-conspiracy. But, it concerned only one thing: the alleged trip to Mexico City by Oswald and who he allegedly talked to there. But, it was ridiculous because the Mexico City affair was well before the assassination, and Oswald hadn't gotten his job yet at the TSBD.
Just today, a guy who goes by claviger put this up on McAdams' forum:
So, according to the above, JFK's trip to Texas wasn't even confirmed until November 4. The Trade Mart luncheon wasn't announced until November 8. And remember that's where the motorcade was going. That there would be a motorcade in Dallas at all wasn't confirmed until November 16. And, it wasn't until November 21 that the Dallas Morning News published the motorcade route. If one assumes that that's how Oswald learned of it, it means that the very afternoon of Thursday, November 21 is when Oswald decided to kill Kennedy.
So, how could he have been doing anything in Mexico City in September that pertained to the JFK assassination? How could he have talked about it with anyone?
Mexican conspirator: Hey! Hombre! Gringo! Oswald! You really should kill Kennedy, Man!
Oswald: Me? Kill Kennedy? OK, I'll tell you what: if I land a job in Washington as a janitor at the White House, I'll give it some thought. Until then, I don't think I'm going to have an opportunity.
Mexican conspirator: But, he needs killing, Man! Find out where he's going. Shoot him while he's riding down the street in a convertible. You can do it, Man!
Oswald: I don't know where he's going. I'm not going to find out where he's going. And, the only thing killing Kennedy would do is to make Lyndon Johnson President. Now, why would I want to do that?
Mexican conspirator: But, he needs killing, Man!
Oswald: You said that already.
Mexican conspirator: Start thinking about it, Man! Figure out a way. Kennedy muertos!
Oswald: Right now, I just want to figure out a way to get far away from you, asshole. You're loco en la cabezza.
So, FOX News was making a big stink about murky dealings in Mexico City- all along the lines of that stupid Philip Shenon book- when the whole idea is not only preposterous; it is completely insane. So, why did they do it?
I guess it's because they think it satisfies the need for conspiracy. If they can fill people up with that, they won't deal with the real question, which is: did Oswald shoot Kennedy, and if he didn't, then where was he and what was he doing at the time of the shots?
But, you see, they don't want you thinking about that. They want you thinking about who Oswald met with in Mexico City; what did they talk about; and did the idea of killing Kennedy germinate there. It's very safe ground for them because Oswald didn't even go to Mexico City. So, the whole discussion is pure illusion; pure fantasy; pure bunk. Therefore, it's perfect.
So, where does John Newman fit into all this? That's my fear; that he fits into it. What I know is that he gets invited on mainstream venues precisely because he doesn't defend Oswald. He doesn't dispute the issue of whether Oswald killed Kennedy; he just makes a lot of noise about a bunch of other stuff, and, that's his way of being a "conspiracy theorist."