Misleading & condescending
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, Oct. 25, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Regarding A Page of Books' “What drove Oswald” (Oct. 13 and TribLIVE.com): Anyone who has not reviewed Oswald's life in a complete objective fashion would be easily misled by Peter Savodnik's highly selective historical portrayal. Regrettably, such a predetermined, one-sided retrospective analysis of President Kennedy's alleged sole assassin is exactly what the Warren Commission did. That kind of biased approach in any homicide investigation is improper. In a highly controversial, heavily politicized murder, it can lead to premature and erroneous conclusions.
Savodnik ignores Oswald's documented relationships with rabid anti-Castro right-wing characters like David Ferrie and Guy Banister in New Orleans. He fails to discuss the fact that in Russia, he was given a loan and, in a couple of days, cleared along with his Russian wife to return to the U.S. Then, according to the FBI's official statement to the commission, nobody in that agency bothered to interview him.
Savodnik's Wall Street Journal essay is not honest journalism. It is as specious and misleading as the “magic bullet” theory. It can be added to the quite long list of reasons why three-fourths of Americans continue to reject the commission's conclusion regarding Oswald as a sole assassin.
Michael Smerconish's column “On JFK: Beware the conspiracy theorists” (Oct. 18 and TribLIVE.com) represents a continuing effort by commission supporters to dismiss critics of its absurd work of fiction in a snide, condescending manner. Arlen Specter's “single-bullet theory” is the greatest piece of forensic scientific absurdity ever introduced into a homicide investigation. Perhaps the Trib could host a debate between Smerconish and me.
Cyril H. Wecht
The writer is a former Allegheny County coroner.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Telling facts
- Budget & business taxes
- Corbett’s choice
- Strong enough
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Invest in pre-K
- ‘We the people’ are veterans
- Islam & women
- Ukraine & history
- Obama & Reaganomics II