Oswald is the real assassin

[John Iacoletti]

That's just fractally wrong.  The defense does not have to prove some alternate theory.  The defense has no burden whatsoever.

Here's the problem:  The "Oswald did it" explanation cannot be derived from the facts.  It is solely derived from assumptions and conjectures made from the facts.  Big difference.

And no, preponderance is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, and is not sufficient in a criminal trial.

Calling people who don't accept handwaving and conjecture "loons" doesn't actually advance your argument.

[Thomas Graves]

     If all that were true, why do you need the word kooky?  Are you sure you spelled that correctly?   What's self-appointed about wanting to know?  Didn't you say most people don't care and what they believe isn't relevant anyways?  What is relevant?  The badge they wear?  The authority invested in them?  I'm very confused by your process, your mission, your words, your determination to drain enthusiasm for the research community, the case closed nostrum that routinely, not saying you, derides love of Kennedy.  How could you possibly miss the shoddy evidence management, even if you insist on denying it was tampering?  It seems to me contempt.  Did your grand uncle clean the limo?  Is this personal?

Have either of you considered the possibility that the (apparently Oswald-blaming) evidence appears to have been handled shoddily and/or tampered with because ... well ... it was handled shoddily, and because J. Edgar Hoover (no lover of JFK and RFK, btw) ordered it to be spun/tampered with in order to help him "save face" (for not having monitored Oswald more closely) and to obviate the need for the U.S. to invade USSR-backed Cuba and / or nuke the Kremlin?

-- MWT 

[Bill Chapman]

That's just fractally wrong.  The defense does not have to prove some alternate theory.  The defense has no burden whatsoever.

Here's the problem:  The "Oswald did it" explanation cannot be derived from the facts.  It is solely derived from assumptions and conjectures made from the facts.  Big difference.

And no, preponderance is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, and is not sufficient in a criminal trial.

Calling people who don't accept handwaving and conjecture "loons" doesn't actually advance your argument.

'Fractually' and factually.

And WTF do trials have to do with the truth, anyway. Trials are about who wins the argument.

[Thomas Graves]

The "Oswald did it" explanation cannot be derived from the facts.  It is solely derived from assumptions and conjectures made from the facts.  Big difference.

Iacoletti,

How many undeniable facts are you aware of in the case?

That the three gals near the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder film are, "uh ... probably Carol Reed, definitely Gloria Calvery, and definitely me, Karen Westbrook!"?

Anything else?

LOL

-- MWT 

[Paul May]

Belief is all one has in the absence of actual evidence.

When one claims “I believe in conspiracy”, they do not provide evidence to support it.  Hence, it’s a belief only.

[Tom Scully]

Belief is all one has in the absence of actual evidence.

When one claims “I believe in conspiracy”, they do not provide evidence to support it.  Hence, it’s a belief only.

Unless enough people (likely voters) to matter are persuaded otherwise, belief is independent of the facts, belief under great brained stewardship.
Also consider the implications if the bulk of those who voted for and still support this...:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-45/
Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure
Issued on: May 30, 2019
…..
Q    Do you still think Robert Mueller behaved honorably?
THE PRESIDENT:  I think he’s totally conflicted.  Because, as you know, he wanted to be the FBI Director, and I said no. As you know, I had a business dispute with him.  After he left the FBI, we had a business dispute.  Not a nice one.  He wasn’t happy with what I did, and I don’t blame him.  But I had to do it because that was the right thing to do.  But I had a business dispute.
And he loves Comey.  You look at the relationship with those two.  So whether it’s love or deep like, but he was conflicted.
Look, Robert Mueller should’ve never been chosen because he wanted the FBI job and he didn’t get it.  And the next day, he was picked as Special Counsel.  So you tell somebody, “I’m sorry, you can’t have the job.”  And then, after you say that, he’s going to make a ruling on you?  It doesn’t work that way. Plus, we had a business dispute.  Plus, his relationship with Comey was extraordinary.
Now, one other thing I’ll say: Why didn’t he investigate Strzok, and Page, and McCabe, and Comey and all the lies, and Brennan and the lies, and Clapper and the lies to Congress, and all of the things that happened to start this investigation?  Why didn’t Comey come clean?  Why didn’t Comey come clean and say the things that he knows are fact?  Why didn’t Mueller investigate Comey, his best friend or his very good friend?  And there are so many other things.



Here’s a question.  This is a study of Russia.  Why didn’t they invest the insurance policy?  In other words, should Hillary Clinton lose, we’ve got an insurance policy.  Guess what?  What we’re in right now is the insurance policy.

Lisa Page explains why she and Strzok talked 'insurance policy' about Trump
March 12, 2019
…….
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/politics/lisa-page-peter-strzok-insurance-policy/index.html

Q    Do you think he behaved dishonorably?
THE PRESIDENT:  I think he is a total conflicted person.  I think Mueller is a true Never Trumper.  He’s somebody that dislikes Donald Trump.  He’s somebody that didn’t get a job that he requested that he wanted very badly, and then he was appointed.  And despite that — and despite $40 million, 18 Trump haters, including people that worked for Hillary Clinton and some of the worst human beings on Earth — they got nothing.  It’s pretty amazing....

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/don-mcgahn-must-testify.html
Don McGahn Must Testify
The president can’t silence the former White House counsel while attacking his testimony to Mueller.
By William Saletan   June 19, 2019
…In the ABC interview, Trump also challenged Bannon’s account of a separate incident. On May 16, 2017, a day before he was appointed as special counsel, Mueller went to the White House to speak with Trump about replacing James Comey, the FBI director Trump had just fired. Bannon later told investigators that “the White House had invited Mueller to speak to the President to offer a perspective on the institution of the FBI. Bannon said that, although the White House thought about beseeching Mueller to become Director again, he did not come in looking for the job,” according to Mueller’s report.
But in the ABC interview, Trump told a different story. “Robert Mueller wanted the job. He wanted to go back as the FBI director,” said the president. “But I told him no.” Trump dismissed Bannon’s contrary account: “Steve Bannon has no idea. Steve Bannon was not in the room.” Again, Trump claimed to have witnesses who could confirm his version of events. He assured Stephanopoulos, “I can get you two people that work in the White House office, in the Oval Office, to tell you [Mueller] was standing in line along with other people applying for the job.” ...

….are not the bulk of those voters who believe in JFKA or subsequent investigation conspiracy / cover up.

[John Iacoletti]

'Fractually' and factually.

Fractally wrong.  That means it's wrong no matter how you look at it.  You probably have to be a computer nerd to get the joke.

And WTF do trials have to do with the truth, anyway. Trials are about who wins the argument.

Agreed, but the discussion was about standards of evidence in a trial.  Did you fall asleep while reading again?