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

[Bill Chapman]

The answer would be anybody who looks honestly at the evidence and finds that it does not support the bogus claims made by guys like Richard Smith.

I asked Richard Smith several times in the recent past what qualifications he had to make certain determinations. Never got a reply of course, but then I never really expected one.

But I did not see you asking Richard a similar question. You probably just missed those conversations, right?

What makes you think I agree with others stating, for instance, "the Carcano" rather than "a Carcano"

And are you sure Richard thinks you worthy of a response?
 

[Richard Smith]

The answer would be anybody who looks honestly at the evidence and finds that it does not support the bogus claims made by guys like Richard Smith.

I asked Richard Smith several times in the recent past what qualifications he had to make certain determinations. Never got a reply of course, but then I never really expected one.

But I did not see you asking Richard a similar question. You probably just missed those conversations, right?

I have no idea what you are talking about but I do remember asking you several times if you posted as Roger Collins who purported to be a lawyer only to get rants and the runaround.  Never a straight answer.  Why that is so difficult is perplexing since you obviously know the answer.

[Martin Weidmann]

I have no idea what you are talking about but I do remember asking you several times if you posted as Roger Collins who purported to be a lawyer only to get rants and the runaround.  Never a straight answer.  Why that is so difficult is perplexing since you obviously know the answer.

I have no idea what you are talking about

Yeah right, of course you don't….

You have never answered the question as far as I know.

Right,...………... as far as you know

Perhaps you did not (want to) understand when I described the whole claim as utter nonsense, several times in the past.

Repeating the same question over and over again is not going to get you a different answer nor the answer you seem to be looking for.

my recollection is that Roger Collins claimed to be an attorney

Really? What kind of an attorney would that be? And could he have been a lawyer, rather than an attorney? You do know the difference, don't you, or do you need to google it?

while you seem devoid of even the most basic legal knowledge

And on what basis and authority did you make such a determination? Do you qualify as a legal eagle or are you just an armchair lawyer using google?

instead of making an honest assessment of the facts and evidence.

How in the world are you even remotely qualified to make a determination of what an "honest assessment of the facts and evidence" would be?

Or is this just your way of saying that if somebody doesn't agree with your opinion he's simply not making such an "honest assessment"?

And btw....

No, I can't clear it up. This idiotic claim has surfaced several times in the past and it doesn't matter what I say, there will always be clowns like you who don't accept what I say and bring it up again. There is no need for me to defend myself or to do what you want me to do and so I won't. You just keep on living in your fantasy world, but I won't respond anymore to this nonsense.

[John Iacoletti]

Since when does a (self-appointed) 'Devil's Advocate' qualify as an arbiter of what is true and what is false?

When did I ever appoint myself as "Devil's Advocate"?

[John Iacoletti]

Point out where I claim that

Your attempts to try each piece of evidence singly, in isolation from the whole of the evidence, is well-known. Lets see you get away with that in a court of law.

[John Iacoletti]

It's got nothing to do with belief

If this is not a belief, then what do you call it?

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.

[John Iacoletti]

Legalese Quote:
"It is a well established principle of law that when weighing the evidence the fact finder must not subject each piece of evidence to the standard of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). The trier of fact must apply that standard of proof to the whole of the evidence."

What it your source for this quote?

I have no problem with somebody looking at the evidence as long as it is not in isolation from said 'whole of the evidence'.

There is no "whole of the evidence".  Just a few weak and circumstantial things that are all questionable, impeachable, arguable, or tainted in some way, and a boatload of speculation and conjecture.