Dallas Morning News: Gary Mack and the evolution of a JFK conspiracy theorist

[William Seger]

57. "All of this testimony strongly suggests..."

> "... that there actually was a Leon Oswald who resembled Oswald."

... which, even if true, proves absolutely nothing pertinent to the JFK assassination, regardless of what it "strongly suggests" to people who filter through the evidence with a confirmation bias that has become definitive of conspiracy crackpottery.

> "In fact, today's evidence is pretty decisive that there was a Leon Oswald in New Orleans around this time."

I'd be willing to bet that a quick check of any large city's phone directory would turn up "decisive evidence" of at least one Leon Oswald, if not more, and I'll take short odds on it. You in?

On the one hand, we're supposed to accept that "Sylvia (sic) Odio was one of the BEST and most important witnesses," but on the other hand, even though she says she's certain the man was Lee Harvey Oswald, we should accept that she was confused by someone who merely "resembled" Oswald with a similar name? If that was supposed to be the "set up" that DiEugenio imagines, what would happen if Silvia Odio had simply realized that Leon Oswald wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald? Did the plot to "set up" Oswald depend on her being confused by a similar name? And if that's what it depended on, then why not at least use the exact same name? Or, what if DiEugenio's unsubstantiated speculation (contradicting what "the BEST" witness says) is simply wrong and Odio is right that it was Lee Harvey Oswald -- what would that tell us about a conspiracy? As I said, nothing at all, and apparently you can't explain why it does. It could have been Lee Harvey Oswald or it could have been someone else, whether or not his real name was Leon, and either way DiEugenio's got nothing probative of a conspiracy to kill JFK. But he does have several books for sale, huh.

> "Richard Case Nagell also said he knew a Leon Oswald in that summer of 1963."

Yup, a guy with brain damage from a plane crash and a history of psychiatric problems said a lot of things "confirming" things that had been publicly reported from Jim Garrison's investigation in '67-'68 (and not until then), including stuff that turned out to be bullshit. Unfortunately, absolutely nothing that he claimed could be proved, since the evidence he kept promising Garrison just never materialized. But that just doesn't matter to people who decide who is credible and who isn't based simply on what they claim.

> Without having to go out and buy you the damned book, Billy, why don't you just READ about the significance of The Odio episode? The absolute best investigative reference into her significance, including what the Commission decided NOT to use can be found in DiEugenio's "Destiny Betrayed" (I have 2nd edition, paper bound, so it won't break your bank), should you actually decide to read what you cry foul over.

Can you or can you not express in your own words why anyone should take any of the videos seriously? Some researchers think it was the real Oswald who visited Odio while the supposed double went to Mexico City (or not), while DiEugenio believes it was the double who visited Odio to "set up" Oswald. Somehow. The only thing they seem to be able to agree on is that the WC wasn't just wrong; they were accessories to murder. But how unfortunate that JFK conspiracists can't muster enough evidence to even convince each other what happened. That would at least simplify the discussion.

You keep claiming there's something of value in these videos -- you just can't quite put your finger on what it is -- and now you imply that, well, even though the argument actually made by DiEugenio in the video doesn't make a lick of sense, all will be revealed if I read his book? Sorry, but on it's face, reading DiEugenio's book would appear to be as much of a waste of time as the video was, except possibly to someone who is interested in the psychology of conspiracism. But unlike DiEugenio, I don't have any problem distinguishing his unsubstantiated speculations from valid evidence-based reasoning, so I just can't see why a larger dose of it would make any difference. Especially without the spooky one-note sound track (which is actually my favorite part of the videos).

So I've watched the introduction and six episodes of this series and still have not come across this credible evidence you assured me I would find. Maybe I'll watch some more and maybe I won't -- doesn't seem to make much difference.