Some time ago I wrote an article about the importance of not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that's not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn't mean they won't be zipping around spouting their flawed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.
There's an issue I just don't see talked about often enough in regards to CIT. People are ready to talk about the things I mentioned above and more. The contradicting testimony, the over-zealous nature of their followers, the fact that the testimony contradicts physical evidence, all these things that relate to debunking them. What I don't see talked about is how this all plays into the legal implications of what CIT is proposing.
Let's say that CIT is right. For the sake of argument, let's say that all of those unsupported excuses, all of that "all the other witnesses are wrong/disinfo" and that "the physical evidence was faked" was, indeed, how it went. Well, perhaps you are satisfied with the evidence CIT has passed on and agree with their proposed conclusion, but bear in mind that when it comes to the big picture this means nothing. What convinces you and what can pass convincingly in court are two entirely separate things, and if our goal as a movement is to merit a new investigation to achieve accountability, then the court method is the more important one, correct? If you agree that trial is going to be a necessary factor in the grand scheme of things, so to speak, then you also have to acknowledge that, well...CIT is useless.