Why should it be? Are you suggesting that lawyers/politicians/scientists/historians/etc are CT's because they too push for What Happened and a thorough accounting of whatever they're engaged in? Why are you so satisfied with mediocrity?
As a historian, allow me to comment with an illustration of the problem you're overlooking, something that came up on Tuesday in an undergraduate dissertation supervision meeting.
I have a student who wants to look at the mafia in the JFK years for her final year thesis, because she twigged that the HSCA records would likely provide a rich cache of material to research mafia activities
in their own right and for their own sake. She is not necessarily interested in whether the mafia killed Kennedy, nor does she need to be, because the HSCA investigated this thoroughly, to the limits of what is reasonably possible, and was strongly motivated to do so because several key staffers and researchers were strongly enamoured of the mafia-killed-JFK theory. Even armed with subpoena power and the might of the House of Representatives behind them, several conspiracy theorists were utterly unable to prove their pet conspiracy theory.
However, thanks to this quirk, the HSCA archive, available online now, contains multiple FBI subject files on mafia bosses and their associates. On Tuesday, we searched around the archive and eventually found the A-Z breakdown of subject files. So I clicked on Santo Traficante's file and found there were upwards of 2,900 separate FBI documents chronicling their surveillance and monitoring of the Miami mafia boss through the 1960s into the 1970s. That was just one file.
Whatever the student does with this material, it's quite clear she will have far too much to include in the 9,000 words permitted for the final year dissertation. She can very easily choose to write about the mafia's activities, or the FBI's investigations of the mafia, not only during the early 1960s but apparently also into the Johnson years and beyond. Without ever needing to bother herself with JFK theories, because the sources can be used for multiple purposes.
By contrast, the FBI's electronic reading room has far less online digitised material on organised crime, although it has at least some. Since the student is based in the UK and would not be able to visit the US National Archives to do a systematic research project for what is after all an undergraduate exercise, then the HSCA cache of materials is a bonanza. If a British student was undertaking a PhD on the same subject, then they'd be expected to travel to the US to go through already-declassified files and maybe make some FOIA requests to winkle out some more material. I'd also suggest for a more advanced project locating trial transcripts and other legal documentation, which are not necessarily archived in College Park. Very likely a PhD student attempting such a project on the mafia of the 1960s would drown just as utterly as the undergraduate is about to in too much material.
And this is just dipping toes into the evidence for
one of the hypothesised co-conspirators in the assassination of JFK.
A better way to arrive at a sane conclusion about the case is to look at the evidence for the assassination itself and at the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald. This is a much more manageable quantity, and is largely but not entirely to be found in the Warren Commission investigation.
If you or any other suspicious mind can take ALL of the WC evidence plus any further 22.11.63-specific materials gathered at other times, and examine it in such a way that you are left with a genuine, legitimate suspicion that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald dunnit or helped dunnit,
without ignoring or throwing away a single piece of that 22.11.63 evidence, then and only then do you have a justified case to move onto the CIA, mafia etc records that are already in the public domain.
After all, you were discussing shots from the front a moment ago - quintessential 22.11.63-specific evidence.
Until you've dealt with what's on your plate right now, you're not really in a position to demand more evidence - there's so much already out there, how do you know your questions won't be answered if you avoid reading it?
