He said : You can always get people to testify about something..."
Interesting, makes me wonder who these people are and why they did not have the opportunity to testify, it should make you wonder too.
Also the last phrase is very interesting, isn't he saying a good lawyer can build any narrative he wants if unchecked?
Yes, indeed it is interesting. And yes indeed, a good lawyer -- anyone, for that matter --
can build almost any narrative
if unchecked. That's precisely why courts have rules of evidence designed to exclude unreliable, irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, unqualified 'experts', junk science, and the like. That's why witnesses can be prosecuted if they deliberately lie. That's why attorneys can be sanctioned or even held in contempt by the judge for misstating the evidence. That's why each side's witnesses can be cross-examined by the other. That's why it's perfectly reasonable, proper and routine for attorneys to try to 'impeach' the credibility of an adverse witness by citing a past history of deceit or criminality. That's why the trier of fact (the jury, or the judge without a jury) is entitled to consider the credibility and integrity of each witness as they weigh their testimony. That's why juries are routinely admonished not to form premature conclusions but to wait until they have heard
all of the evidence.
And that's why every single formal inquiry into the JFK assassination has come to the same conclusions: that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy and Officer JD Tippit and injured Governor Connally, and that he did so alone and without a conspiracy. Although none of these inquiries was an actual criminal trial of Oswald (because he was dead), they nonetheless followed many (though certainly not all) of the rules and procedures that would have been used in such a trial.
But when it comes to
informal examinations of the case by private individuals producing books, magazine articles, movies, radio talk shows, interviews, documentaries, Internet blogs, etc,
none of these rules apply. Thanks to our First Amendment freedoms of the press and speech (and I wouldn't have it any other way) almost anything goes short of direct threats, incitement to imminent violence or libel. And in the United States (but
not in many other countries, notably the UK) a plaintiff who is also a public figure must work
very hard to win a libel case.
So when you write your book alleging that JFK was killed by a massive conspiracy involving the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, the Dallas Police Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Mafia, Vice President Johnson, Cuban Intelligence, General Motors, the Soviet KGB, and local Boy Scout Troop 340, you don't have to give both sides of the story. It's
your book; say whatever you want. Pick and choose the witnesses that support your case and ignore the rest. Quote only that which helps you and ignore the rest, like the bits that completely change the meaning of what you quoted or reveal the witness to be as nutty as a fruitcake. When discussing the flood of information that came out so haphazardly soon after the assassination, with much of it being 'corrected' later, insist that conspiracies
never make 'mistakes'. They only cover things up.
Go ahead and completely make up stuff; the more outrageous and sensational, the better your book will sell. Just be careful about the people who are still alive, as some could sue and maybe even win for libel and that might cut into your profits. Whenever you're at a loss for evidence to back up an allegation, and you can't make up anything sufficiently juicy, blame the all-powerful conspiracy for its utter ruthlessness in suppressing and covering up the evidence that you
know must have existed.
Say that writing this book has been a labor of love for you, and that you simply must get the word out and you no longer care what
they will do to you. Audiences just eat up that sort of thing. So go nuts. Insane paranoia is The American Way.
