In response to my defense of Phil Shenon and Larry Sabato’s integrity, former University of Havana law professor Arnaldo Fernandez writes:
“:Let´s agree that Shenon and Sabato are sincere and do not engage in disinformation. Then, they are on the borderline in the way they deal with the body of evidence.”
“For instance, they asserted that even the CIA failed to interview Silvia Duran, although it´s well-known that she was grilled by the Mexican security police on behalf of the CIA and according with its line of questioning. Moreover, the HSCA thoroughly interviewed her and the whole point they are trying to make becomes superfluous.
“They also asserted that Oswald firing the shoots has been proven by 21st century ballistic analysis, but in fact there is no such corroborating analysis, but rather, conclusive evidence on the contrary.
“In sum, they are presenting old and debunked issues as something important that the Warren Commission should have known about and deserves deeper research today, as if the Lopez Report, the rest of the HSCA work, and all the findings related to the declassification process by ARRB do not exist.
Next: Professor Fernandez on Politico’s JFK conspiracy theory.
Yes, no matter what their intent, their article reads and serves as cover for the CIA. Which surprises me because in Sabato’s JFK book, he says the conspiracy question is still plausible but not proven until the agency explains its subterfuge around Joannides.
I’d like to know from a US law professor if Angleton and Helms would’ve been prosecuted for perjury if their lies and misrepresentations to investigators had been known in the 60s or 70s.