Mea Culpa

I was wrong. I honestly believed that John Kennedy was murdered in a conspiratorial crossfire involving at least two gunmen and at least a half dozen plausible perpetrators. I did not reach these conclusions without forethought and honest analysis, but I was wrong.

I lost my job last week, so I focused my fancies on what any single, 28-year old, heterosexual male would do with the first week of spring; I read a 1,000 page book. "Reclaiming History", by Vincent Bugliosi, to be precise. He had me at page 500.

For any generic murder victim, the identity of the murderer centers on motive, means, and opportunity. Usually, there are exceedingly few people who would have the motive, means, and opportunity to kill a person. For Kennedy, especially in light of what has been disclosed about his associations and conduct since his assassination, there was no shortage of people and factions who would have motive, means, and opportunity to kill this man.

And that is the ultimate fount of the conspiracy paradigm; since so many people wanted Kennedy dead, doesn't it seem unlikely that a 24-year old loser would kill him with a 12-dollar rifle? And that that same loser would be murdered in police custody with a single revolver shot to the stomach? Of course it does. But that's what happened.

Though there were many people who wanted Kennedy dead, and though the parade route in Dallas was not secured in a remotely competent fashion, and though the limo did not speed away after the first shot, and though the Zapruder film seems to show a shot from the front, and though Oswald did an unrealistically good job of shooting, the fact remains that every last inch and gram of physical evidence points to all of these things being innocent and accurate.

The Kennedy case is a good study in the aberration masquerading as the rule. ALL of the physical evidence in Kennedy's murder points to Lee Harvey Oswald and nobody else. The conspiracy viewpoint relies on taking pieces of that evidence, which ALL points to one man, and arguing that any flaw or inconsistency in that evidence is proof that that man, to whom ALL evidence points, must be entirely innocent. After all, it worked for O.J.; but don't we all really know he did it?

Oswald did some expert shooting, even though the Marines did not label him an expert marksmen. We should say, "Well, Oswald was trained to use high-powered rifles in the Marine Corps." Instead, we say, "Well, Oswald wasn't labeled an expert, so he must be totally innocent." That is not a leap we would make for any other murder victim than John Kennedy.

Lee Harvey Oswald bought the rifle. He worked in the building where the rifle was found. His hand and fingerprints were on the rifle. All three of the bullets retrieved were linked to his gun. He was the only employee of the building to leave after the assassination. He murdered a police officer for no apparent reason 30 minutes later. In any other case....case closed.

The part of the history that most grates on credulity is Jack Ruby's murder of Oswald. This is the Building 7 of the JFK assassination; it is the point at which rational people say, "okay, I was with you up to this point, but give me a fucking break." A building that wasn't hit by a plane collapses into its own footprint? The alleged assassin of the president is murdered on live television in a police station, handcuffed to an armed police officer?

I still reserve my cynicism on Building 7, but Oswald's murder is not analogous. Rather than a proof of conspiracy, it was the blunder that led to the conspiracy industry. His murder does not reflect a ruthlessly efficient conspiratorial apparatus, however; it reflects the utterly predicate pattern of human incompetence and irrationality.

I can comfortably say that I am glad that I was wrong. I'm glad that Kennedy was killed on a fluke and a lark by a man who was only lucky one time in his life. That is far more comforting than the image I have lived with prior to this week. Thank God I was wrong.