Fear! They killed many in the 60s and 70s who knew the truth. He may think it's safe now.
Anyway, he was on this morning, doing a long talk promoting his theory. I'm not sure there is anything there, but since I always hated LBJ I am interested to see where this leads.
I think there is a lot there. I never knew who did it, I never thought LBJ did. But the indentification of convicted killer Mac Wallace's print in the sniper's nest and the ownership of the building by Byrd and his actions, both LBJ pals, makes it obvious to me.
What WOULD happen if it could be proven beyond doubt that LBJ was up to his bushy eyebrows in this thing?
We already know that he killed Marshall and nothing happened. Democrats would poo poo it and the media would call it ridiculous and that would be the end of it. And that is what is happening.
I honestly don't know- I suspect that there would be no possible level of proof that would convince diehard Democrats, and it would break down along Party lines, like everything else in this country.
I respectfully disagree. This is like a sports team to a lot of people. People have their beliefs and they're wedded to them, it doesn't matter what evidence you show them. They can't change their mind about the JFK assassination because it would prove to themselves that they were wrong about something important.
I didn't suspect LBJ was behind the assassination until I read McClellan's book. I wouldn't say that book proves its case, but I did find it highly persuasive. (I was perhaps unusually receptive to McClellan's case because I recently read the latest volume of Caro's life of LBJ, which makes me believe LBJ was capable of this sort of crime. Caaro is a liberal, and so he is, in my opinion, too kind to the man, but he does not disguise the man's faults.)
So I think something like McClellan's book is capable of changing people's minds.