Sean,

I think that IS a position that one can hold. His story seems really incredible. That he saw these things that no one else saw. But he might just have been the right person in the right place.

I doubt it because the history of his story shows him putting in certain details to fit conspiracy talk that was floating around at the time, only to then have these claims contradict or not fit very well with other facts about the assassination that are not well known to the general public or even the average person with a bit of an interest in the case. (My favorite examples about that involve "witnessses" reporting suspicious goings on on the OTHER side of the triple overpass, without knowing that there not only were other witnesses there BUT PHOTOGRAPHS. Ooops.)

Still nothing the matter with an open mind, as long as one is willing to accept when a position is weakened or strengthened by additional arguments and information. At some point a reasoned judgment probably tips one way (e.g., Gordon Arnold) but one should not blindly and dogmatically either attack or defend one of these late-arriving witnesses or statements.

Bruce