I, to this day, don't know what happened. I know that Larry Rivera was scheduled to appear at the mock trial until about 24 hours before it began. Then, I got an unexpected call from him telling me that he was given the boot. And, he had bought a flight to Houston, at his own expense too.
The reason he was given was that he appeared on The New JFK Show in which anti-semitic remarks were made. I don't think they accused Larry Rivera of making anti-semitic remarks. Rather, it was someone else. But, Larry was on the show.
It can't be a truthful reason; rather, it was just an excuse. It can't be truthful because there are two issues here: there is Larry Rivera the person, and there is the evidence he was going to present of Oswald in the doorway. Even if you were going to reject Larry for being an anti-Semite (which, of course, he is not) why would you change your mind about the evidence? Wouldn't you just find another way to present it?
And I offered them a way. There is a photo expert named Chana Willis, who has never appeared on the JFK Show and has no anti-semitic skeletons in her closet, and she agreed to go to Houston. She could have presented Larry's work and mine, easily, plus she has image work of her own about this. But, they rejected her too. They never even responded.
You see, the truth is, what really happened is that Schnapf and Simpich changed their minds about presenting Oswald in the doorway. And why they did that, I can only wonder. I suspect it is because other people were talking to them, saying, "You don't want to go with those people." And it may have been the same people, or person, who told them,
"You can go with Carolyn Arnold seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25, and then Marrion Baker seeing him there at 12:31. That leaves a 6 minute gap, but he couldn't get upstairs and shoot Kennedy in 6 minutes. So, you'll be covered."
But, you know the outcome of it: a numerical loss. So, it was very bad advice.
But, I think what it really comes down to is that they were thinking of themselves. They were probably told that they would be criticized for putting on a guy like Larry Rivera, that he's not considered "respectable" within the "community." Who was it who told you that, Larry Schnapf? Was it that Tink Thompson? Oh, we've had our run-ins with Tink, and I could put up stories about him; and maybe I will. So, is he the one who implored you not to embarrass yourself by going with a "Fetzer follower" and claiming Oswald in the doorway? It's all over now; so why don't you fess up? Why don't you just reveal all? Why not clear the air? Don't you think that after all those weeks of back and forth that Larry Rivera and I have a right to know?
Or, was it Bob Tanenbaum himself? Because we went to him before we went to you, and admittedly, he told us to get lost.
Was it Brian Edwards? Was it someone else?
The fact is that Larry Rivera has given his presentation in front of audiences, large and small, including mixed and neutral audiences, enough times for us to know that his presentation is powerful. It moves people- and it would have moved that jury.
It not only should have been shown- it should have been the centerpiece of the defense. You didn't need Wecht or Mantik or Aguilar or any of those other witnesses. The last witness Brian Edwards is the ONLY witness who did Oswald any good at all. And let me tell you something: if the trial had ended before Brian took the stand, the verdict would have been GUILTY. Brian Edwards is the ONLY reason you got to save face and walk away with a hung jury.
And there was no reason you couldn't feature both Brian Edwards and Larry Rivera. All you had to do was dump one of those other blowhards. Pick one; any one. I couldn't care less; they were all useless to Oswald.
And, if you had done that, the very worst you would have gotten is a highly acquittal-leaning hung jury or an outright acquittal. You would have had a very good chance for an acquittal.