Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Bugliosi: 53 Reasons It Was Lee Harvey Oswald [View all]bogmanla
(2 posts)So this point and many others Bugliosi claims for "evidence" are pretty weak. To be honest, I'd heard about Bugliosi's top 53 reasons for Oswald's lone nuttiness and figure they'd be stronger.
A good portion of his reasons are what authorities said Oswald said under custody later but DPD kept no notes, had no recording equipment and no stenographer.
The odd thing is the FBI said they ostensibly had taken over the case by the evening of the assassination but never recorded Oswald either. They did record his scared Russian widow days later in captivity (safety) for seven hours -- and her comments also make up a good portion of Bugliosi's "evidence."
BTW, FBI agent Hosty was told by HQ to stop interrogating Oswald altogether after Mexico City came up. He has said that. Look it up.
Thought there would more to the lone nut theory. Apparently not. Nothing here says Oswald couldn't have been set up by a sophisticated conspiracy by people who know how to put one together, especially one supported by the full power of the government in cover-up mode. After Oswald's killed in policy custody, the FBI and Warren Commission made it clear there was no need to investigate or subject any of their witnesses and evidence to cross-examination.
As Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry said shortly after his retirement, "Nothing we have puts that gun in Oswald's hands in that window." Even Hoover told LBJ the case was "not very very strong" before Oswald was killed.
Too much malarkey.