Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Now, Joseph Backes is comparing the JFK assassination to the movie MY COUSIN VINNY. This is incredible:

"Now everyone in that town, all of the law enforcement people, and all of the witnesses presented did not conspire amongst themselves to tell a lie because they wanted to convict two kids that they knew were innocent.  Nor was the judge or the prosecuting attorney in on a conspiracy.  There were flaws in the testimony, there were other incorrect interpretations of the evidence, there were assumptions made, leaps in logic, that added together, as a cumulative effect, lead to the wrong conclusion." 

So, that's what happened in the JFK case? So, none of the law enforcement people conspired to tell any lies about Oswald; they weren't trying to convict a young man they knew to be innocent. There were "flaws" in the testimony. So the stuff William Whaley said was just a "flaw" in the evidence, much like Lovelady's "trek to the tracks", and they were "incorrectly interpreted" about which "assumptions" were made and "leaps in logic" were taken such that added together "as a cumulative effect" Oswald was rendered guilty of being the lone assassin of Kennedy and Tippit.

"But, that would take cognitive skills to understand the paragraph I just wrote, to say nothing of actually watching the movie, "My Cousin Vinny," and understanding what that film can teach you.""

Wow. That is profound. And here I thought Oliver Stone's JFK was the movie to watch when it turns out to be My Cousin Vinny. Who knew?

And just as Backes doesn't claim to know where Oswald was in the building, now he is phrasing it that he doesn't know if McWatters, Bledsoe, and Whaley intentionally told something that wasn't true or not. 

Wow, Backes really changes his mind, doesn't he? Previously, he disputed the very existence of Mary Bledsoe since he couldn't find her picture. He never for a second disputed the existence of the mysterious African-American waving from the sidewalk that Richard E. Sprague alluded to, but the existence of Mary Bledsoe he disputed. But yesterday, he was sure that she existed because he claims to know that she was too poor to hire a lawyer, therefore the other side must have given her one (who was really working for them) in order to guide her testimony in the direction they wanted, and they even wrote notes for her to use so that she could keep to their script. Remember how it bothered Backes that they didn't enter these notes into evidence? 

Then Backes wrote something so stupid, so incoherent, it really boggles the mind:

"That John Armstrong has a problem with the number of people involved in a deception, or the number of people involved, intentionally or not, in telling something that isn't true then he is attacking his own work.  It's like I said with McWatters, Whaley and Bledsoe.  The uneducated mind doesn't not understand the concept of self-contradiction.  Armstrong presents a theory of not only two Lee Harvey Oswalds, but two Marguerite Oswalds, yet he has the audacity to complain that if a large number of people, institutions, and pieces of evidence are involved in a deception then that automatically means the story, or an analysis of such a story is false.  If he really believes that, then he's calling himself a liar." 

So, because John Armstrong proposes there were Two Oswalds 

and there were two Marguerites:

that John Armstrong therefore has no right to complain that "if a large number of people, institutions, and pieces of evidence were involved in a deception"(so, the people, the institutions, and the pieces of evidence conspired to deceive) that he can't automatically assume that the story that comes out as a result of that deception is false. 

Backes, you are out of your fucking mind.