An Open Letter to Lance Payette

Lance,

I once admired your even-handedness. What happened to that? The Lone-Nutters and Tin-Foil Hatters are just opposite sides of the same coin. I think you say a much in a slightly different way, yet you have begun arguing in the same manner, using the same tactics as the Nutters.

Which means that there are some elephants  that you seem to want to step around and avoid. Let me enumerate them.

1. Every suspect is entitled to offer an alibi and to have that alibi investigated in order to have themselves cleared as a suspect if the alibi stands up. Oswald's alibi was not investigated, despite Chief Curry's belated admission that they never could put Oswald on the 6th floor. The alibi was instead, buried and lied about after he was dead.

Investigating people's claims about their actions and whereabouts at the time an event took place is a common theme in crime dramas and standard operating procedure in real cases.
https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-140303696/alibi-evidence-in-criminal-investigations-and-trials

2. The known record of the Dallas Police and DA's Office in railroading innocent people. This included knowingly sending at least one innocent man to the electric chair. Innocent Project stats show more innocent people sent to prison by Dallas County than in any other jurisdiction in the US. That is one mutherfucking elephant to avoid right there. 

https://www.innocenceproject.org/dallas-county-cases-where-dna-has-proven-innocence/ This story represents 24 cases of exoneration in 10 years and obviously does not include those actually executed.

Nevertheless, you maintain confidence in the evidence against Oswald, which includes

3.1 A positive paraffin test for nitrates on the hands. Hands which seconds earlier had been pressed onto an inkless pad to obtain palm-prints - an inkless pad that contained nitrates.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10483&relPageId=569

Here is where you tell me that the paraffin tests were useless and I reply "no, they were not. The cops used them to try and scare suspects into confessing and this case, to also try Oswald through the media."  

3.2 A bunch of evidence with no, or only a partial, provable chain of possession, This includes the so-called Magic Bullet - as luck would have it, a critical find since the recovered bullet fragments were too small for matching. 
http://22november1963.org.uk/was-lee-oswald-framed-for-the-jfk-assassination

3.3 The wackiest bunch of witnesses since Jehovah was seen walking on water - including a bus driver who thought he was there to ID someone else; a cab driver who had Oswald wearing about 4 layers of clothing and who swore he could tell all he needed to know about person by looking at them - and swearing before the commission that his passenger was a drunk; an hysteric related to members of Barrow gang; Howard Brennan who would later call himself God's Eyewitness to History or some such crap and who initially refused to ID Oswald; a cop who couldn't tell what floor he was on or whether he was on the stairs or in a lunchroom and a housekeeper who was described by her employer as a habitual teller of tall tales.

4. Another elephant you've avoided is that while no one claimed to see Oswald on the steps, likewise no one claimed to see Joe Molina (who was in a more prominent spot and was there longer) or any of the African-American employees. I guess some people are just naturally invisible. 

Lance, a critical part of building a case is creating a timeline that puts your suspect at the scene with the means to have committed the crime. The cops had such a timeline in all 24 cases in the above linked exonerations. These were therefore all false timelines. Think about that, and consider it in relation to how the timeline with Oswald can be accepted with any confidence, given what I have laid out here.

You are welcome to join here if you would like to respond.

Does Lance lurk here? Otherwise he might never see this thread.

Vinny wrote:Does Lance lurk here? Otherwise he might never see this thread.

No, he saw it, Vinny.

Lance Payette wrote:I will add that I'm slightly confused by the repeated references to poor Joe Molina, as though this somehow bolsters Oswald as Prayer Person.  The beloved Vickie Adams (is she a candidate for conspiracy sainthood yet?) testified she spoke to him immediately after the assassination, Geneva Hine saw him come into the building with precisely the people he testified he was standing near, and he appears in Altgen 6 and the Wegman and Darnell films standing precisely where he said he was standing.  Pauline Sanders' FBI statement doesn't say anything about standing or seeing anyone - it simply doesn't address the topic - and she didn't testify to the WC.  Pretty much ditto for Otis Williams, who told the FBI he didn't remember who was standing on either side of him and likewise didn't testify to the WC.

True, no one specifically said he or she saw Joe Molina on the TSBD steps.  But there is no question Molina was in fact standing on the TSBD steps.  I am lost as to what sort of logic regards this as bolstering the notion that the blurry blob in the corner might be Oswald.  All it really shows is that "not everyone who claimed to be in the vicinity of the TSBD front entrance at the time of the assassination was recalled by those who were asked who they recalled being there."

Thanks for the response, Lance.

Sorry that we can't do this more directly, but I was barred for the Ed Forum for taking on the clowns you are now dealing with. It is now Tin-Foil Hat Central. Not sure how that is supposed to be educational... but there you have it.

You are slightly confused? So I am -- by the fact you have completely misunderstood the reason for the references to Molina and to Carl Jones, so I'll try and explain it a different way. 

The references are not - repeat not to support Oswald being Prayer Man. One argument however that always creeps up is that, if it was Oswald, how come no one saw him. Response: Well, no one reported seeing Molina and Jones either. So it is a negation of that "how come" argument, not evidence that any particular person was in that position, but evidence that no one saw him is meaningless. 

But then, as Bart suggested, who was going to say they saw him, even if they did?

But talking of witnesses - your reliance on Eddie Piper to suggest Oswald "went upstairs" is misplaced.

His Sheriff's affidavit of Nov 23 certainly says that, but this was after Oswald had given his alibi of having lunch in the domino room and being briefly outside. The authorities would have been desperate for evidence to the contrary. And Piper was a particularly susceptible witness because he was a prime suspect for being the "Elderly Negro" on the 6th seen by young Rowlands.

In any case, on Dec 20, Piper was interviewed by the FBI. This interview records that he had "never entered into any discussions with with Lee Harvey Oswald." 

Then came his commission testimony. 

Ball: Was that the last time you saw him [Oswald]?

Piper: Just at 12 o'clock.

Ball: Where were you at 12 o'clock?

Piper: Down on the first floor.

Ball: What was he doing?

Piper: Well, I said to him - It's about lunchtime. I believe I;ll go have lunch. So he said "yeah" and he mumbled something. I don't know whether he said he was going up or going out.
 
Three different version - including one where no discussion took place at all. I personally believe it was Piper that Rowland saw. His own alibi for the lunch period is terrible. 

Sat at a first floor window to watch the parade but couldn't actually see anything from that position -  but - if he is to be believed - he is about the only person in DP whose first thought is to time-stamp the shots. He testified to running to the coffee making area between the second and third shot specifically to look at the clock (in his own words "I did it to see what time it was - to see what time all this happened - to see what time it was."). He then claimed that the clock showed 12:30 - between 12:27 and 12:30.
I call that the optional lie ploy.

What he told the sheriff's office was that the clock said 12:25 - by coincidence the time the motorcade was due - but not when it actually arrived. 12:25 would be the time someone would give if supplying a false alibi but was unaware that the motorcade had been late.  

FBI interview
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10673&relPageId=18&search="eddie_piper"%20and%20out

Sheriff's affidavit
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136&relPageId=517&search="eddie_piper"

WC Testimony
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35#relPageId=395&tab=page

What I am suggesting to you is that neither the Tin Foil Hatters nor the WC apologists have any claim on the facts - it is a partisan and ideological battle with plenty of misinfo, and propaganda flying around from both side. And just as some wanted to drag the Cold War on for an eternity, so it is with the CT/LN duopoly.

You cannot apply scrutiny to just one side and give the other a free pass. Neither is telling the truth.

Lance Payette wrote:My point is, there is rather a wide gulf between (1) "No one mentioned Joe Molina or Carl Edward Jones when asked who they recalled on the steps" and (2) "No one in the entire vicinity came forward screaming 'Lee Harvey Oswald is supposed to be the assassin?  Are you kidding?  I saw him standing on the front steps!'"  This is why the Prayer Person narrative has to become "Well, he just slipped out there unnoticed for a couple of seconds" - the very couple of seconds when the blurry image was conveniently caught on film.  I'll be delighted to see a clear photo some day, but the theory seems to me to pile implausibility upon implausibility past the breaking point.  That doesn't mean it isn't true, but it does exemplify the axiom that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - in this instance, a clear and unequivocal photo.

No Lance. A short period out there was always the narrative because the the PM figure was not captured in films after Weigman and Darnell. He was also seen by Ochus Campbell in or near the fist floor storeroom soon after. 

I would ask that you save your impugning for the theories that truly deserve it. 

Like ones claiming doppelganger Oswald's with doppelganger mothers.

Like the theory that has Oswald hiding a rifle in a blanket in someone else's garage with the blanket looking rifle-shaped but with a Korean veteran handling it more than once and thinking it was camping equipment.

Like the theory that Oswald risked carrying the weapon from that garage wrapped in paper that police described again as looking like a rifle case, up past multiple neighbors to the Randle house - without being seen by a single soul on the way. Oswald sure got lucky.

Like the theory that Oswald got the rifle inside the TSBD and hid it in an unknown place without being seen carrying anything by a single soul. Am beginning to think this is starting to sound like implausibility piled on implausibility. Hmmm? Where have I heard that before?

But it doesn't stop there. We next meet Oswald have a gun stuck in his gut by a cop, but Lee is cool as a cucumber. That is until he boards a bus. then he is described by a fellow passenger as looking like "a maniac" before getting off and getting a cab and is described by the driver as looking like a drunk and wearing 3 or 4 sets of clothes. Then he is seen by his landlady, who would later tell reporters that Mr Lee liked to read lots of Westerns - unfortunately these had mysteriously disappeared by the time the cops came. Or maybe she meant a different Mr Lee?

Then of course, he coolly executes a cop with a pistol he had hidden in a room the size of shoebox which was inspected daily by the very nosy Mrs Roberts without her finding it - or the holster the cops claim they found. We next meet our hero going from James Bond cool to Don Knocks knock-kneed scared shitless outside the shoe-store.

Oi vey! That is REALLY some theory you're leaning toward there, Lance. And one that is only possible to believe by taking everything in the government case as Holy Writ beyond any type of verification process and beyond any reasonable skepticism.

Kick that butt on both sides of the street, Lance. Because at present, it is this site that holds the only sane sensible position, not you.

Even if the garbage data dump that is the WC was removed in toto from people's memories, I am afraid the cognitive dissidents will find difficulty in warping their minds around any form of logic.

I think a lot of this lies in the fact the the attachments people put to different words or the fact that people just view the universe differently.

Example: at the present moment, Trump is attempting to reopen a financial scandal from a few years ago in The Ukraine after the vice president coerced the country to drop their investigation of his son. When word of this hit the press, they interpret it as an attempt to tamper with the 2020 election. Any logical person would see that the investigation is being restarted because the man committed a crime. Does it matter that he is currently running for President?

Who cares? It was still a crime.

Some people can't seem to grasp that.

So, with the JFK assassination, most people I have talked to over the years think there might have been a conspiracy and a cover-up but the biggest drawback is that they cannot sense a motive for such to have occurred.

No... "motive"?

I mean, what can you do with such people?

Flabbergasted.

Terry W. Martin wrote:Even if the garbage data dump that is the WC was removed in toto from people's memories, I am afraid the cognitive dissidents will find difficulty in warping their minds around any form of logic.

I think a lot of this lies in the fact the the attachments people put to different words or the fact that people just view the universe differently.

Example: at the present moment, Trump is attempting to reopen a financial scandal from a few years ago in The Ukraine after the vice president coerced the country to drop their investigation of his son. When word of this hit the press, they interpret it as an attempt to tamper with the 2020 election. Any logical person would see that the investigation is being restarted because the man committed a crime. Does it matter that he is currently running for President?

Who cares? It was still a crime.

Some people can't seem to grasp that.

So, with the JFK assassination, most people I have talked to over the years think there might have been a conspiracy and a cover-up but the biggest drawback is that they cannot sense a motive for such to have occurred.

No... "motive"?

I mean, what can you do with such people?

Flabbergasted.

Well said, as always, Terry.

Lance Payette wrote:1.  With all the evidence pointing toward Oswald as the assassin, the Prayer Person thesis is, from the get-go, a massive implausibility - not utterly impossible, certainly, but neither are alien basis on the dark side of the moon.

Which is the point I have made with you before. The DPD was/is notorious for framing the innocent and the guilty alike.  Fritz boasted a 98% murder clearance rate. Even now, with far better forensics, police forces worldwide only average about 60% clearance rate. You actually have a better chance of getting away with murder than you do with an act of terrorism. Only a fool or the willfully blind would suggest that Fritz could clear 98 out of every 100 murders without framing some innocent people. And the stats for Dallas County from the Innocence Project back this up. So I ask you Lance, on what basis do you give all of this "evidence" a clean bill of health? It seems to be no other basis than Lone Nutter blind faith because the fact is, there are huge legal issues with the vast majority of this evidence - from the line-ups, to the searches, to the chain of possession, to the validity of some of the science, to witness tampering and on and on.

2.  In order to make PP work, a large number of seemingly ordinary and credible people, such as the 20-year-old Frazier and his sister (and many others), would have to either be part of the conspiracy or knowing accessories after the fact - another massive implausibility and, it seems to me, a classic violation of Ockham's Razor.

Firstly, on Okham's razor, I'll rely on someone far more leaned than myself - noted historian Pamela Crossley:

The medieval philosopher William of Okham who introduced this principle was not dealing with history, but with philosophy (the ancestor of natural science studies). It became dear to those who apply empirical discipline to study the natural world, and especially to those working in experimental environments. It is an extremely sound principle for observing a phenomenon repeatedly, comparing the results, and searching for the simplest explanation that will cover all the results involved. This is because the experimenter designs the experiment, and in so doing limits the number of variables while being able to repeat the experiment as many times as necessary to get a consistent result. All very nice and logical. The problem is that those who wish to apply it to history (and there are many) are attempting to intrude this beautiful idea into an environment for which it is totally inappropriate. Historians can not observe phenomena over and over again to see how they come out. Everything happens only once. Moreover, the historian has no way at all to limit the variables involved. They are whatever they are. The more the historian explores, the more variables are found, and the fewer can be excluded.

There may be, in the end, a discernible hierarchy of causes and results. Some causes are immediate, some remote in time or place. Some are direct, some are indirect, some are byproducts of other primary causes having other results in other contexts. Some historians throw up their hands and say there is no causality. Some say everything causes everything. But nobody can do history by just assuming that there is some way to reduce multiple results to a single cause. Spector's magic bullet was a successful application of Ockham's Razor, suitable to laboratories and computer simulations. There is no need to introduce more than one bullet in order to explain Connally's wounds and Kennedy's non-fatal wounds. The problem is, you can only explain wounds that way --you can't explain history that way.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081004212150/http://www.tonsethhouse.net/DB/jfk_theses.shtml

Secondly, false witness testimony is a major factor in innocent people being sent to prison.

Here are but two quick examples:

He was convicted after a faulty police lineup resulted in false eyewitness testimony. 
https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/daryl-dwayne-holloway/

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_199044d1-2fe4-5592-b3c1-2274b3b03d8e.html
Gibbs was wrongfully accused and convicted of murder after being framed by detectives who used a false eyewitness testimony.

There are many many more examples I could post. It is the notion that witnesses are rarely mistaken or coerced that is at loggerheads with reality. You are guilty of the very thing you accuse others of, Lance. You need to own up to that.

3.  In order to make PP work, one would need a convincing explanation as to why Oswald, in his interactions with the press, his appearances at line-ups, his forays within the hallways of the DPD, and his meetings with his wife and brother, never screamed at the top of his lungs "Jesus Christ, I was standing on the front steps - someone must have seen me!!!" - rather implausible, it seems to me.

What's "implausible" to you is of little relevance. If he had known he would be murdered on Sunday, I am sure he would have. In the meantime, he was answering rapid fire questions as he was hustled down hallways - and at the so-called conference, he was hooked off stage as soon as he started pleading his innocence and asking for legal help. He may or may not have given his alibi if left on stage longer.  As for the family visits, he told his brother not to believe the "so-called" evidence, but apart from that, did not talk about his arrest to any of them. I am guessing he did not want to stress any of them out more than they were and kept calm and talked about mundane matters like new shoes for June. 

4.  In order to make PP work, one would need a convincing explanation as to why Oswald undertook his rather extreme series of post-assassination actions, without having any idea as to whether the photographic evidence or eyewitness testimony might provide him with an airtight alibi of having been standing on the front steps - rather implausible, it seems to me.

I have no idea what you are getting at here. His "extreme" post-assassination actions are part of a false narrative - an essential part of any frame.

5.  No one in the vicinity - not just TSBD employees, anyone - ever came forward and said he or she saw the ostensible assassin standing on the steps of the TSBD - a rather substantial implausibility, it seems to me.

And there it is! The argument that no one said they saw him! Which is exactly why Molina and Jones are always brought up. No one said they saw them on the steps, yet they were there. Certain people were just invisible. Blacks, Mexicans and dirty rotten commie assassins. Oswald was in the domino room when he saw Junior and Shorty come back inside at about 12:25. Prayer Man is not seen in any later films after Weigman and Darnell. Between those to things, he could not have been out there very long - which of course accounts for him having to stand in the back corner where no one was looking - for obvious reasons.

Also, Oswald had a history of arriving late to view a celebrity and looking on from an awkward position far in the background:

6.  In order to make PP work, one must posit that Oswald appeared unobtrusively for a few seconds and vanished back into the building, never so much as asking anyone "What's all the excitement?" - not impossible, of course, but certainly somewhat implausible and conveniently tailored to fit the PP hypothesis.

He already knew what the excitement was. The motorcade had been discussed earlier in the day among the workers, including Oswald. It is not "conveniently tailored". It is what the evidence shows.

7.  During those seconds that Oswald was out there, as luck would have it, his blurry image was caught on film.  Pretty much the one person who can't be readily identified just happens to be Oswald - again, not impossible but certainly somewhat implausible and conveniently tailored to fit the PP hypothesis.

Again with the "conveniently tailored"? The only "tailoring" done was by the cops who - guess what? had a history of "tailoring" to put people away. Of course, if it was any worker apart from Oswald, he would have been identified. I guess it is also "convenient" that he has a receding hairline, and is wearing worker's clothes? Or are you going to claim those features cannot be discerned? His apparent girth is nothing of the sort, btw. He is standing in front of glass. Glass reflects and the photo is taken at such an angle as to capture some of that reflection. It give the optical illusion of extra girth. But go ahead and tell me that is also an implausibility.

8.  The PP hypothesis requires a convincing explanation as to why, after planning a Presidential assassin and planting the patsy's rifle on the sixth floor, the conspirators would have exercised so little control that the patsy was standing on the front steps of the TSBD - I have neither heard nor been able to think of such an explanation.

A communist conspiracy did not require him to be a shooter. The need to have him on the 6th floor as the sniper only came about when the LN scenario was ordered. That's one of the reasons so many stories morphed over time, not least that of Givens.

In short, the PP hypothesis is the classic really extraordinary claim requiring really extraordinary evidence.

Tell me why the Weigman and Darnell films are in the hands of a corporation and not the National Archives? They are "JFK records" as defined by the JFK Act and should be held where they can be examined.

It seems to me that the approach of folks such as yourself is to say "If we can prove the image is Oswald, items 1-8 above all fall by the wayside."  This is true, but items 1-8 count decisively against anything other than an absolutely clear and unequivocal photo of Oswald that simply cannot be denied.  You will never get there through "analyses" showing no more than "hey, you can't say for sure that the image isn't Oswald."  Because of items 1-8, at this point we pretty much can say that.

I beg to disagree on the following grounds: 

1. Ockam's Razor has no place in determining history. 

2. You ignore the record of the DPD for framing innocent people. 

3. You refuse to examine the validity of the prosecution evidence but insist instead it should be taken at face value, despite point 2.

4. You use fallacious arguments about what people "should" have done or "should' have seen. 

5. The above points show you to be blind to the fact that you indulge in the same bullshit arguments and methodology as both the WC apologists and the Tin Foil Hatters.

This is the only place where you won't find those games being played.

greg parker wrote:

Lance Payette wrote:1.  With all the evidence pointing toward Oswald as the assassin, the Prayer Person thesis is, from the get-go, a massive implausibility - not utterly impossible, certainly, but neither are alien basis on the dark side of the moon.

Which is the point I have made with you before. The DPD was/is notorious for framing the innocent and the guilty alike.  Fritz boasted a 98% murder clearance rate. Even now, with far better forensics, police forces worldwide only average about 60% clearance rate. You actually have a better chance getting away with murder than you do with an act of terrorism. Only a fool or the willfully blind would suggest that Fritz could clear 98 out of every hundred murders without framing some innocent people. And the stats for Dallas County from the Innocence Project back this up. So I ask you Lance, on what basis do you give all of this "evidence" a clean bill of health? It seems to be no other basis than Lone Nutter blind faith because the fact is, there are huge legal issues with the vast majority of this evidence - from the line-ups, to the searches, to the chain of possession, to the validity of some of the science, to witness tampering and on and on.

2.  In order to make PP work, a large number of seemingly ordinary and credible people, such as the 20-year-old Frazier and his sister (and many others), would have to either be part of the conspiracy or knowing accessories after the fact - another massive implausibility and, it seems to me, a classic violation of Ockham's Razor.

Firstly, on Ockam's razor, I'll rely on someone far more leaned than myself - noted historian Pamela Crossley:

The medieval philosopher William of Okham who introduced this principle was not dealing with history, but with philosophy (the ancestor of natural science studies). It became dear to those who apply empirical discipline to study the natural world, and especially to those working in experimental environments. It is an extremely sound principle for observing a phenomenon repeatedly, comparing the results, and searching for the simplest explanation that will cover all the results involved. This is because the experimenter designs the experiment, and in so doing limits the number of variables while being able to repeat the experiment as many times as necessary to get a consistent result. All very nice and logical. The problem is that those who wish to apply it to history (and there are many) are attempting to intrude this beautiful idea into an environment for which it is totally inappropriate. Historians can not observe phenomena over and over again to see how they come out. Everything happens only once. Moreover, the historian has no way at all to limit the variables involved. They are whatever they are. The more the historian explores, the more variables are found, and the fewer can be excluded.


There may be, in the end, a discernible hierarchy of causes and results. Some causes are immediate, some remote in time or place. Some are direct, some are indirect, some are byproducts of other primary causes having other results in other contexts. Some historians throw up their hands and say there is no causality. Some say everything causes everything. But nobody can do history by just assuming that there is some way to reduce multiple results to a single cause. Spector's magic bullet was a successful application of Ockham's Razor, suitable to laboratories and computer simulations. There is no need to introduce more than one bullet in order to explain Connally's wounds and Kennedy's non-fatal wounds. The problem is, you can only explain wounds that way --you can't explain history that way.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081004212150/http://www.tonsethhouse.net/DB/jfk_theses.shtml

Secondly, false witness testimony is a major factor in innocent people being sent to prison.

Here are but two quick examples:

He was convicted after a faulty police lineup resulted in false eyewitness testimony. 
https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/daryl-dwayne-holloway/

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_199044d1-2fe4-5592-b3c1-2274b3b03d8e.html
Gibbs was wrongfully accused and convicted of murder after being framed by detectives who used a false eyewitness testimony.



There are many many more examples I could post. It is the notion that witnesses are rarely mistaken or coerced that is at loggerheads with reality. You are guilty of the very thing you accuse others of, Lance. You need to own up to that.

3.  In order to make PP work, one would need a convincing explanation as to why Oswald, in his interactions with the press, his appearances at line-ups, his forays within the hallways of the DPD, and his meetings with his wife and brother, never screamed at the top of his lungs "Jesus Christ, I was standing on the front steps - someone must have seen me!!!" - rather implausible, it seems to me.

What's "implausible" to you is of little relevance. If he had known he would be murdered on Sunday, I am sure he would have. In the meantime, he was answered rapid fire questions as he was hustled down hallways - and at the so-called conference, he was hooked off stage as soon as he started pleading his innocence and asking legal help. He may or may not have given his alibi if left on stage longer.  As for the family visits, he told his brother not to believe the "so-called" evidence, but apart from that, did not talk about his arrest to any of them. I am guessing he did not want to stress any of them out more than they were and kept calm and talked about mundane matters like new shoes for June. 

4.  In order to make PP work, one would need a convincing explanation as to why Oswald undertook his rather extreme series of post-assassination actions, without having any idea as to whether the photographic evidence or eyewitness testimony might provide him with an airtight alibi of having been standing on the front steps - rather implausible, it seems to me.

I have no idea what you are getting at here. His "extreme" post-assassination actions are part of a false narrative - an essential part of any frame.

5.  No one in the vicinity - not just TSBD employees, anyone - ever came forward and said he or she saw the ostensible assassin standing on the steps of the TSBD - a rather substantial implausibility, it seems to me.

And there it is! The argument that no one said they saw him! Which is exactly why Molina and Jones are always brought up. No one said they saw them on the steps, yet they were there. Certain people were just invisible. Blacks, Mexicans and dirty rotten commie assassins. Oswald was in the domino room when he saw Junior and Shorty come back inside at about 12:25. Prayer Man is not seen in any later films after Weigman and Darnell. Between those to things, he could not have been out there very long - which of course accounts for him having to stand in the back corner where no one was looking - for obvious reasons.

Also, Oswald had a history of arriving late to view a celebrity and looking from an awkward position from far in the background:

6.  In order to make PP work, one must posit that Oswald appeared unobtrusively for a few seconds and vanished back into the building, never so much as asking anyone "What's all the excitement?" - not impossible, of course, but certainly somewhat implausible and conveniently tailored to fit the PP hypothesis.

He already knew what the excitement was. The motorcade had been discussed earlier in the day among the workers, including Oswald. It is not "conveniently tailored". It is what the evidence shows,

7.  During those seconds that Oswald was out there, as luck would have it, his blurry image was caught on film.  Pretty much the one person who can't be readily identified just happens to be Oswald - again, not impossible but certainly somewhat implausible and conveniently tailored to fit the PP hypothesis.

Again with the "conveniently tailored"? The only "tailoring done was by the cops who - guess what? had a history of "tailoring" to put people away. Of course, if it was any worker apart from Oswald, he would have been identified. I guess it is also "convenient" that he has a receding hairline, and is wearing worker's clothes? Or are you going to claim those features cannot be discerned? His apparent girth is nothing of the sort, btw. He is standing in front of glass. Glass reflects and the photo is taken at such an angle as to capture some of that reflection. It give the optical illusion of extra girth. But go ahead and tell me that is also an implausibility.

8.  The PP hypothesis requires a convincing explanation as to why, after planning a Presidential assassin and planting the patsy's rifle on the sixth floor, the conspirators would have exercised so little control that the patsy was standing on the front steps of the TSBD - I have neither heard nor been able to think of such an explanation.

A communist conspiracy did not require him to be a shooter. The need to have him on the 6th floor as the sniper only came about when the LN scenario was ordered. That's one of the reasons so many stories morphed over time, not least that of Givens.

In short, the PP hypothesis is the classic really extraordinary claim requiring really extraordinary evidence.

Tell me why the Weigman and Darnell films are in the hands of a corporation and not the National Archives? They are "JFK records" as defined by the JFK Act and should be held where they can be examined.

It seems to me that the approach of folks such as yourself is to say "If we can prove the image is Oswald, items 1-8 above all fall by the wayside."  This is true, but items 1-8 count decisively against anything other than an absolutely clear and unequivocal photo of Oswald that simply cannot be denied.  You will never get there through "analyses" showing no more than "hey, you can't say for sure that the image isn't Oswald."  Because of items 1-8, at this point we pretty much can say that.

I beg to disagree on the following grounds: 

1. Ockam's Razor has no place in determining history. 

2. You ignore the record of the DPD for framing innocent people. 

3. You refuse to examine the validity of the prosecution evidence but instead instead it should be taken at face value, despite point 2.

4. You use fallacious arguments about what people "should" have done or "should' have seen. 

5. The above points show you to be blind to the fact that you indulge in the same bullshit arguments and methodology as both the WC apologists and the Tin Foil Hatters.

This is the only place where you won't find those games being played.

Brilliant.

PS:

In short, the PP hypothesis is the classic really extraordinary claim requiring really extraordinary evidence.

Bullshit. That cute sounding phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (ECREE), was popularized by Carl Sagan. Claims are claims. Evidence is evidence.

But Sagan never defined the term "extraordinary." ECREE is commonly invoked to discredit research dealing with scientific anomalies, and has even been rhetorically employed in attempts to raise doubts concerning mainstream scientific hypotheses that have substantive empirical support.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099700/

Excellent point, Stan!

Ockam's Razor and ECREE being misused and abused to the Max.

But Lance is a smart guy. If he would only use his "smarts" to examine the WC claims and not just those of Tin-Foil Hatters... it is my sincere wish that lance is himself sincere and will take what has been said here on board.

Inspiring stuff guys and yes, brilliant responses based on your years of research. I also appreciate that Lance has stepped up to the plate and addressed matters in a sincere manner.

Yes unlike DVP who runs away at least Lance is making an effort to defend his opinion.

greg parker wrote:Excellent point, Stan!

Ockam's Razor and ECREE being misused and abused to the Max.

But Lance is a smart guy. If he would only use his "smarts" to examine the WC claims and not just those of Tin-Foil Hatters... it is my sincere wish that lance is himself sincere and will take what has been said here on board.

Actually, he's not nearly as intelligent - based on his lame responses - as you give him credit.

But many people involved in this search who get buried in the minutiae seem to allow reason and logic to go blithely out the window.

I wish hindsight really were 20/20 and people could see what the REAL case was, on the ground, as it happened, rather than flavor everything about the case through the lens of the WC kool-aid. An intelligent person WOULD. Lance is most definitely NOT that guy.

Excellent stuff Greg.
I agree 100% about the misuse of Ockhams principle. Fundamentally it was ( and still should be) a philosophical concept.
Also the facts in question must of course be be the true facts. Otherwise the any attempt is worse than futile.
Lance sounds like he's arguing with himself as much as he's debating you.
Trying t reassure himself.
Guys like him put artificial parameters round their intelligence.
They never examine their own beliefs with the same rigour they reserve for the beliefs of others.
LNs and tin foil hatters really are the two different ends of the same spectrum.
But kudos t Lance for at least having the guts t raise his head above Mings Intergalactic parapet.
You would have made a great prosecuting attorney Greg.
Just think in another lifetime you could have been wigged up facing down Dawnie over her briefs..
You don't want t know what it says in the gents toilets of the Texas Very Busy Loyers Club about what Dawnie does with her wig and her briefs..let's just say somewhere in the heart of deepest Texas there's a very pissed off horse minus a large clump of hair..

Bullshit. That cute sounding phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (ECREE), was popularized by Carl Sagan. Claims are claims. Evidence is evidence.


Brilliant Stan!

They never examine their own beliefs with the same rigour they reserve for the beliefs of others.


Alex, ain't that the truth.

alex wilson wrote:Excellent stuff Greg.
I agree 100% about the misuse of Ockhams principle. Fundamentally it was ( and still should be) a philosophical concept.
Also the facts in question must of course be be the true facts. Otherwise the any attempt is worse than futile.
Lance sounds like he's arguing with himself as much as he's debating you.
Trying t reassure himself.
Guys like him put artificial parameters round their intelligence.
They never examine their own beliefs with the same rigour they reserve for the beliefs of others.
LNs and tin foil hatters really are the two different ends of the same spectrum.
But kudos t Lance for at least having the guts t raise his head above Mings Intergalactic parapet.
You would have made a great prosecuting attorney Greg.
Just think in another lifetime you could have been wigged up facing down Dawnie over her briefs..
You don't want t know what it says in the gents toilets of the Texas Very Busy Loyers Club about what Dawnie does with her wig and her briefs..let's just say somewhere in the heart of deepest Texas there's a very pissed off horse minus a large clump of hair..

a great title for a western comedy of the Cat Balou or maybe even Blazing Saddles variety.

A greenhorn newly-minted Eastern loyer alights from the coach in the outside of the only hotel in Anal Itch - the Anal Itch Inn.

Mick Purdy wrote:Bullshit. That cute sounding phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (ECREE), was popularized by Carl Sagan. Claims are claims. Evidence is evidence.


Brilliant Stan!

Stan has been throwing out these little gems from the get-go. 

Am a little disappointed that Lance has dropped off.

Smarty pants Lance puts ROKC on Double Secret Probation. So extraordinary of him.

Just imagine the Deep Political Nite down at the Anal Itch Inn...
" On stage for your delectation we are proud t present in association with Lemkin Extra Absorbent Adult Nappies" For those times when its just too deep t wait"...all the way from Fort Worth Venereal Clinic..Dawnie the Texan Titwillow...singing that lovely old standard "Too busy t get jizzy" and haven't we all!!"
In the audience Pete La Petomane..the Prague Political Fartuese..he'll turn anything into flatulence...
Drooling on his seat, strategically placed outside the ladies toilets,..in blackface( who else?) but Bri Bri..Sanibel Island's leading "horse whisperer" dressed as Sheriff Bart..looking on jealousy is LarryMongoImage..46 stone of pure gibberish..
In the dressing room the Incredible Drago/Dragoo Brothers.."Rhode Island's leading erotic magicians( ladies don't pick a card unless you want t b fishing Ace of Spades out of you know where for weeks after..) "are arguing with Sandy the Swinging Cowboy..the fattest stripper this side of the Appalachian Mountains..over whose on next..
What a fucking great night..

Geeze, Lance says he refuses to reply... but then makes about a 16 paragraph response. 

His response can be broken down in three parts. Bemoaning that we have labelled him "dumb", for example here, he says...

I, you will be pleased to learn, am lacking in common sense and logic and am perhaps not all that smart.  That’s right, it’s dense old me 

Whereas, all I ever said about Lance in that regard is, "Lance is a smart guy. If he would only use his "smarts" to examine the WC claims and not just those of Tin-Foil Hatters... it is my sincere wish that lance is himself sincere and will take what has been said here on board." 

Others on here expressed a contrary opinion... but that can't be, can it, since Lance also employs the canard commonly used against ROKC that other members here are mere minions and sycophants?  

The rest of it is an attempt to play dueling experts regarding the applicability of Occam's Razor and ECREE - a ploy straight out of the Very Busy Loyer's Handbook. 

Firstly, he quotes his experts to suggest it is quite appropriate to use Occam's Razor regarding "conspiracy theories". Even if that were to be accepted (it's not, but for the sake of argument...) , the Prayer Man figure being Oswald has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It was Oswald's alibi as recorded in real time by FBI agent Hosty. Which brings us to ECREE, whereby Lance pronounces for reasons that are are only in his head, that Prayer Man being Oswald is an extraordinary claim. But again, as proven by the Hosty notes - it was Oswald's alibi - and there is nothing extraordinary about a suspect having an alibi. 

If I understand Lance correctly, he suggests what makes a common garden variety alibi (I was elsewhere at the time...) "extraordinary" is the vast amount of evidence placing him elsewhere... another LN tactic is to play up the quality and amount of the prosecution evidence, whilst blithely dismissing exculpatory evidence with a wave of the hand. 

This segues into a good look at the Elephant in the Room that Lance refuses to acknowledge... the 98% murder clearance rate of one Will Fritz - an impossible record even today with vastly superior science. Additional to that is that we know that Fritz sent innocent people to jail - and some to their death. We know this via the work of the Innocence Project. In short, his 98% clearance rate is an impossibility without framing some innocent people. Then we can add to that issue, the issues of chain of possession, the whacked out witnesses relied upon, and the ever-evolving stories supplied by various other witnesses-particularly those inside the building where you have encounters on third or fourth floors morphing into an encounter in a second floor lunch-room, encounters with police at the front entrance being buried despite being spoken of by Oswald during interrogations and reported very early in the press quoting police at the scene, and people like Charles Givens going through at least 5 different stories to arrive at his final one during his testimony, placing Oswald on the 6th floor after going back up to retrieve cigarettes...an astonishing piece of information missing from his previous many and varied narratives.

Lance is happy to accuse me of doing what he himself is doing - playing debate games. I want to debate all aspects of this. Clearly Lance wants to keep the focus narrowly on the two aspects he feels he has some chance of "winning". Another tactic used by true conspiracy theories AND lone nut advocates - but not used here. 

All I did was implore Lance to consider using the same logic and vigor on the LN case that he claims he uses on the conspiracy side. Somehow this request has morphed into me a being a typical conspiracy nut as it enters Lance's neural circuitry. 

I don't deal in conspiracy theories, Lance. Nor in the fairy tales published by the government. 

This is a Texas murder cold case - that is my view of it and how I deal with it.  I was hoping you would agree with that viewing of it, and apply cold case principles.Seems tho, you are too attached to your position as prosecutor cum government apologist. 

Carry on. Forgive me for interrupting your fun.

The best way t ignore the weakness of your own argument is t focus upon the perceived weakness of your opponents.
Lance has obviously attended the Christian Sophists Academy..an offshoot of the Trejo Hegelian Detective school.
I love it when Christians and LNs get all sanctimonious on us...peering down haughtily thru the Sacred Monocle of Antioch.
Lance obviously likes his fairy tales, a 2000 year old fable assembled from pieces of much older stories or the Warren Commission, it's the same basic concept.
If only he used his razor sharp intellect t examine his own spurious beliefs ah but then he wouldn't be Lancey boy...the most intellectually honest Lance since Mr Armstrong...i wonder if Lance A had a brother?
He's obviously got this treasured perception of himself..the Holy Lance of Las Vegas..fearlessly confronting nefarious conspiracy peddlers.
According t Holy Lance were just another branch of the conspiracy family...it's all a game t him.
Trivialize, euphemise banalise..
Lance you're a sophist and a hypocrite..not since Trejo have i seen someone with such a bloated and wholly unjustified sense of self satisfaction.
You exist in a fog of incense and sanctimony..the reflections from the chalices and crucifixes cause you t see your own faults in others.
Sycophants..how very original..if sycophant means eschewing petty squabbles t focus on a common goal then yes I'm a sycophant.
But according t the dictionary definition ROKC is the furtherest thing from sycophancy. Here we think for ourselves and reach our own conclusions. LN or conspiracy ALL facts are examined and evaluated on their own terms.
Like they taught you at Lawyer school.
Keep playing H and L fantasy pattycake with intellectual titans such as Jimbo Baggins and the Man in the 13 inch hat.
I'm afraid that's about your level.
Why not have a shot at debunking Mr Rich Popes various proclamations.
You're way out your depth Lancey boy.
Being a lawyer doesn't grant you instantaneous credibility...Dawn Meredith is a lawyer.
Say no more.
Keep debunking things that were debunked decades ago.
Keep playing your conspiracy games.
The only person that makes you look more foolish than ROKC or Cliff Varnell is yourself.
And before you start squealing i know a lot of Christians have a sincere and devout faith.
People are free t believe what they want. It's when people like you adopt airs of faux superiority..that's when i get annoyed.
Your beliefs prop up your very sense of self as does your sneering dismissiveness.
If youd ever like t debate 1st century history just you give me a shout. We'll see who the sycophants are then. I take great offence personally and on behalf of ROKC. T b called a sycophant by someone who slavishly follows the beliefs of bronze age farmers is quite an insult.
Spend a fraction of the time you spend examining the beliefs of others examining your own. Then perhaps you won't sound like a hypocritical blowhard.

But Alex, what do you think of his pussy?

Let's try and break it down into bite-sized parts

Lance Payette wrote:You will see that Greg, et al., employ a familiar Conspiracy Game tactic – against you, their fellow members of the Conspiracy Brotherhood. You are whacked-out, credulous, tinfoil-hat-wearing loons.  They are hard-boiled researchers who do not countenance your sort of BS and deal only in facts.  See the difference?

You are posting from a site that that posits moon hoaxes, contrails, doppelganger Oswalds and Marguerites, LBJ-did-it conspiracists and someone pushing the idea that Nixon hid UFO secrets in the walls of the White House - and you are comparing that to a site that treats the assassination as a cold case murder, so who is playing games, Lance? 

And we are not part any Conspiracy Brotherhood, though I know you desperately want us to be because you feel more comfortable in the battleground. 

I, you will be pleased to learn, am lacking in common sense and logic and am perhaps not all that smart.  That’s right, it’s dense old me who for some unfathomable reason just cannot seem to grasp the plausibility and indeed sheer brilliance of the Prayer Man Hypothesis.  Notwithstanding my academic and professional credentials and having made my living in reasoned analysis and debate for some four decades, I’m practically as lost as you folks – maybe more so.

Name one time anyone has claimed the hypothesis was brilliant? I think you may find that the person who made the discovery has had his deconstruction described as brilliant. But that's about it. The hypothesis is drawn from the evidence and is pretty simple.

-Man is arrested for murder.
-Man is interrogated and says he was elsewhere at the time.
-Man gives location as having lunch on 1st floor and stepping outside watching the passing motorcade
-Newspapers the next day quote police as stopping Oswald at front door
-Newspapers the next day quote the VP of the building as seeing Oswald shortly after shots near store -room on first floor
-Nearly 50 years later, someone notices a figure in the doorway who is otherwise unidentified but has similar features to Oswald. No one has yet put forward any logical alternative.
-During that 50 years, history and truth catches up with the DA and chief police investigator as railroading suspects as a matter of "business as usual".

So in short, evidence supports alibi. Against that, there is a circumstantial case using evidence with no chain of custody and a carnival of freaks as witnesses.

You want proof. But that proof is illegally under lock and key by a corporation. We know. We have tried to obtain it. And we will keep trying. We are all prepared to be wrong. Also note that those films make the thesis falsifiable - unlike the Two Oswald nonsense and UFOs and magicians in the sky. 

I declined to respond, at ROKC or here, because Greg, et al., are simply another species of H&L junkies, Best Evidence junkies, John Newman junkies, and other species of conspiracy junkies.  There is simply no such thing as reasoned discussion with a fundamentalist zealot.  There is nothing I could say, there or here, that would not cause the discussion to descend even deeper down the endless, convoluted rabbit hole I call the Conspiracy Game.  To borrow a phrase from Cliff, I no longer do fake debate.

The only fake debate is the one you are engaging in. trying to paint us in the same light as others is an admission you have nothing, and are grasping for an excuse to disengage.

Please, if you find my Tower of Implausibility regarding Prayer Man as set forth above to be a poorly constructed edifice of illogic, enjoy the responses of Greg and his self-congratulatory sycophants as they shred poor, not-too-bright moi.  I have nothing further to say to you.  You are too far gone.

Lance's Tower of Disbelief requires a willful aversion to the framing proclivities of the DPD, with a concurrent blind faith in the evidence of those same fine men. 

I will, however, briefly address two epistemological issues.  I was attacked at ROKC for my “gross” misuse of Ockham’s Razor and the ECREE principle (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) in my above post.  My failure to understand these principles was deemed sufficient in itself to demonstrate what a hapless dolt I am.

To paraphrase Gil Grissom, if you see road apples outside you door, don't think you've been visited by Aristotle.

Occam's razor has no place in the investigation of a murder, despite what TV cops suggest. Let's dispense with the ludicrous description of this murder as a "conspiracy theory" and you might begin to see your problem. Or not. But that's also your problem. It is evidence and evidence alone, that leads to solving a murder. Sometimes that evidence will lead to a simple solution. Sometimes it will take you on a scenic route - doesn't matter - the evidence leads the way, not a philosophy designed for scientific inquiry of the natural world. 

That’s not exactly the way conspiracy theorists think. Either Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii, or an international plot unfolded over multiple decades to conceal his Kenyan birthplace and install him in the presidency. Either vaccines are safe and effective, or every major hospital and health organization in the world is covering up the fact that they actually cause autism. Never mind the razor — conspiracy theories are nothing but extraneous assumptions.

You are railing against something that does not exist on this site. You are doing this because it is what you are used to and is all you know how to do. At the moment, you seem incapable of debating anything other than your own shadows and ghosts of forums past.

As for ECREE - I stand by what Stan posted. It, like Occam's Razor, is irrelevant.

And your take on ECREE in regard to PM is risible. Here it is:

ECREE does not apply to the Prayer Man Hypothesis simply because it is “unusual” or “bizarre.”  It does apply to the PMH because the PMH (1) is contrary to the vast weight of the known evidence; (2) rests on a foundation of the flimsiest sort of “evidence” and the wildest sort of speculation; and (3) is on its face highly implausible for the reasons set forth in my Tower of Implausibility.  Google “ECREE + Baye’s theorem + probability theory” and you will have a far better understanding than the folks at ROKC.

"The vast weight of the known evidence" -- the known evidence being the case put together by a known framer of innocent people and has no chain of custody -- as opposed to the ignored or buried evidence, including Hosty's notes, two films that should be in the archives, but aren't, HSCA interview of TSBD employees, and first day news accounts quoting TSBD directors and police at the scene. 

"The wildest speculation" Wow. That's an extraordinary claim against those who are simply interested in finding out the facts about the alibi of an accused man. I think you need to provide some extraordinary evidence for it, Lance. Man up and quote what you consider this "wildest speculation" to be.

And while you're at it, do yourself a favor and stop shitting yourself. Take a deep breath, calm down and take stock because at the moment, throwing feces wily-nily is not a good look  - let alone a winning tactic - for a seasoned lawyer like you.

I'll refrain from making any feline related jokes...i wouldn't want t offend any delicate constitutions and sensibilities. I know Bri Bri and Tyrannosaurus Tom like dropping in here.. Tyrannosaurus Tom in particular is a noted cat lover... especially Siberian cats...the well at least the floor of his trailer is covered in what resembles cat shit and the locals often see a 14 foot Sasquatch like creature wandering about wearing a coat made out of skinned cat poor Bill Miller...poor John Butler too...the night all 3 met up outside Sanibel Islands Infectious Disease Clinic is a long and tragic story...
Imagine Dostoyevsky penning an episode of T J Hooker throw in a few cats and a one legged junk addicted Vietnam veteran..
Anyway what Mr Payette does with his own ( or for that matter anyone else's) pussy is , thank Armstrong, none of my business.
I did wonder as i wander if he was a fan of the Tasmanian short haired erotic albino..i believe Mings the Intergalactic erotic albino cat breeding champion.
A little gerbil told me that Ming and Paul Trejo tried t" dialectically matieralise" a Tasmanian short haired erotic albino with one of JVBs American Cream Dogs..
Apparently there were fluffy tailed red shirted erotic chupacabras rampaging all through certain parts of Texas.
In fact rumour has it Ralph Cinque has written a screenplay about it
" Felched in the Texas Pound"..In Texas no one can hear you purr...will be released next year.
Mings right eyebrow even has a cameo role.
Scurrying caterpillar like out the top pocket of El Fez...one of the red shirted erotic albino hybrids..
Poor old El Fez chased his half way across Texas..before Jimbo..the grotesque half hobbit half red shirted erotic albino told him he hadn't even got a tail..
A great piece of cinema.
Sandy the Swingingest Cowboy wrote and performed the entire soundtrack.
His quest for unibrow non smiling doppelganger moms led him all the way t Lapland..where strangely enough he met a red snowsuited  Paul Trejo..apparently Harry Dean told him ex General Walker had planned t assassinate Santa Claus for being a commie stooge...the red suit and the socialistic idea of free gifts.
However Mr Trejo seemed far more interested in finding out how Santa managed t slip his ample belly down such tight chimneys..." My colleague Jason and i have encountered similar difficulties" he mumbled
Anyhoo Sandy found a troupe of Inuit throat singers..of course being the Swinging Cowboy that he is he got the poor bemused Inuits t sing out their asses.
Apparently Swinging Cowboys normally communicate anally.
It actually explains quite a bit...
About ole Lancey boy...not even the great Henry James himself could have dreamt up a more ironic stroke...a Warren Commission hugging Christian UFO chasing lawyer lecturing us from the pulpit of a forum swarming with whacked out H and L cultsters, ex "CIA agents" who sound like Barney the Dinosaur co starring in a Walt Disney remake of John le Carre not t mention Paul Trejo..the habitual liar with the analytical skills of a 900 million year old fossilized ameoba...not t mention more tin foil than the annual Trine Day sponsored all you can eat Turkey barbeque( an event that usually ends with Prof Fetzer bursting his voluminous man nappies then rolling around on the ground like a walrus after an evening with JVB in Dave Ferries kitchen)...lecturing us about epistemology and philosophical concepts...
It's enough t make you want t buy a basement in Sanibel Island and thwart the entire US National Security apparatus armed only with a selfie stick and his strangely inflexible cover of Grace Slicks first solo album...
Armstrong help us all

Exactly. The evidentiary trail from Lance's pussy to a Grace Slick album cover is there for anyone to see.

Here is what Lance is assiduously avoiding.



656 solved murders out of 666 in a ten year stretch has to be some sort of world record that is so far ahead of the pack that police all over the world should be learning Fritz's techniques. According to my calculator it comes out at a whopping 98.49% solved rate - and that stat never wavered and is almost 40% better than the best police forces in the world today.

Lance do you believe Fritz had super-human powers of deduction?

I think it is far more likely that Fritz simply framed a hell of a lot of people because statistically, the best any other police force would have achieved is around 399 out of the 666. Simple math tells us that in that 10 year period, Fritz railroaded up to 257 people. That's over 25 per year in that 10 year period. Some of those no doubt, were actually guilty - but we know for a fact that not all of them were - and when you railroad even guilty parties, you run the risk of having them released on technicalities.

Yep. Lance does not want want to address this at all. He knows it leads to the absolute need to look very closely at Fritz's evidence - evidence he surely knows is tainted by gaping holes in the chain of custody, to name but one problem with it). Lance would rather just keep his blind faith in the prosecution case without any of that namby-pamby scrutiny he reserves for obvious fairy tale conspiracy theories. Shooting fish in a barrel is Lance's level.