CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[Martin Weidmann]

You keep arguing for what I don't know, all I can do is quote evidence.

Norman who was directly below heard 3 shots and shells hitting the floor.
A vast majority of eyewitnesses heard 3 shots.
3 shells found in the sniper's nest.

And you keep repeating the same thing over and over again as if it means something, when it doesn't.

No need for ballistics in a case which involves a rifle murder, really?

JohnM

Who said that? Stop misrepresenting my words, John. I does not make your case more credible!

[Martin Weidmann]

Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.
>>> You are certainly fond of saying that sort of thing. So, by comparison, does no one seeing or hearing Oswald on the stairs post shots prove that he wasn't on the stairs? Or does this 'Absence-of-Evidence-does-not-necessarily-mean-Evidence-of-Absence' thing of yours short circuit when inconvenient to your contrarianism?

regardless of what Norman thought he had heard
>>> Thought* he heard, huh? LOL.

*You arrogant troll. Do I detect the scent of racism here?
You (and Iacoletti) demean Euins, too.

By comparison, does no one seeing or hearing Oswald on the stairs post shots prove that he wasn't on the stairs?

No it doesn't. But you need to prove he was there, not that he could have been there.....

*You arrogant troll. Do I detect the scent of racism here?
You (and Iacoletti) demean Euins, too.

You are an idiot. This entire conversation has nothing to do with Euins....

I'm fairly confident that most of the people on this board, most of the time, do not have a clue what it is you are rambling about.

[Richard Smith]

It's even more compelling since according to that chart 95% of the witnesses heard three shots or less.  If three shots were fired from the SN, that accounts for all these shots. There would be no second shooter.  So one shooter firing all the shots from the SN.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's even more compelling since according to that chart 95% of the witnesses heard three shots or less.  If three shots were fired from the SN, that accounts for all these shots. There would be no second shooter.  So one shooter firing all the shots from the SN.

This is so stupid, that it doesn't even warrant a reply.

[Jon Banks]

It's even more compelling since according to that chart 95% of the witnesses heard three shots or less.  If three shots were fired from the SN, that accounts for all these shots. There would be no second shooter.  So one shooter firing all the shots from the SN.

Ear witness accounts are usually more worthless than Eye witness accounts.

Most people couldn’t have noticed they were hearing gun shots till maybe the second or last shot.

[Jack Nessan]

The corroborated evidence.

81 eyewitnesses out of every 100 eyewitnesses heard 3 shots.



3 shells found in the Sniper's nest.



Btw it's not up to me to prove anything, all I did was present evidence.

JohnM

Unforunately it is way more complicated than a simple Joel Grant pie chart constructed based on someones bias. The witnesses tabulation behind the pie chart definitely leaves room for scrutiny. The ratio of eyewitnesses to earwitnesses is skewed to the earwitnesses by a large percentage. Even the list of witnesses and there different statements are questionable.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm

Where is the breakdown of people who first said two shots then changed to three (example:Garland Slack) or a description of the timing of the shots that is beyond the capabilities of the Carcano. A vey large number of three shot earwitnesses can be ruled out by last two shots being so close they sounded like one or words to that effect or believe there was a second shooter.

Where is the breakdown of the eyewitnesses seperate from the earwitnesses. A large percentage of eyewitnesses stated there was just two shots or descriptions of the headshot that occurred on the second shot. The eyewitnesses were able to not only hear but see what was happening.

Actually attempting to construct a tabulation of witness testimony, given the ever changing statements, without a very ridgid set of parameters is a fools effort. Even then the parameters become the object of the debate.

[John Iacoletti]

Are you under the impression that I'm arguing about my personal conclusions? 

Probably.

[John Iacoletti]

*You arrogant troll. Do I detect the scent of racism here?
You (and Iacoletti) demean Euins, too.

  Cite Martin or I ever "demeaning Euins".

P.S. Bonnie Ray Williams in his first day affidavit reported only hearing two shots.