The major logical postulates of this course
(Draft, 18 April 2000)
The JFK assassination is easy to understand. All that is
needed is to use the evidence in the proper way. That proper way is
straightforward and based on centuries of legal and intellectual experience. The
assassination appears complex and insoluble only because the great majority of
its researchers have failed to adhere to the lessons of history.
These principles of working with evidence can be listed in
just a few lines. It is almost embarrassing to have to list them here, but I do
so because they are so frequently violated by students of the assassination.
1. There is only one right story of the assassination.
1.1. There are many perspectives from
which to view that story.
2. There is only one closest approach to the true story
available from the present evidence.
3. There is only one best way (the "right way") to
use the evidence to approach the true story.
4. That right way is based on common sense and centuries of
legal and intellectual experience.
4.1. Physical evidence is inherently
stronger than testimonial evidence.
4.2. Not all testimonial evidence is
equally weak.
4.3. Begin with physical evidence when
both types are available.
4.4. Use physical evidence to develop the
basic case, then testimonial evidence to fill in gaps.
4.5. Conclusions based on testimonial
evidence will nearly always be weaker than those based on physical evidence.
4.6. A chain of evidence can be no
stronger than its weakest link.