A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[Richard Smith]

I am just highlighting the absurdity of John's contrarian approach to this case by applying it to other situations.  By his idiotic standard, no one actually saw Lincoln shot by Booth.  They just heard a shot, immediately looked in that direction and saw Booth pointing a pistol at Lincoln's head.  Thus, John would take issue with anyone characterizing that as seeing Booth shoot Lincoln.  Implying that someone else could be the responsible party.  He has made that absurd argument in the Tippit situation as well.  It is very humorous to see him dance like a circus monkey at the absurdity of his own logic when applied outside his fantasy JFK narrative.

[Royell Storing]

I am just highlighting the absurdity of John's contrarian approach to this case by applying it to other situations.  By his idiotic standard, no one actually saw Lincoln shot by Booth.  They just heard a shot, immediately looked in that direction and saw Booth pointing a pistol at Lincoln's head.  Thus, John would take issue with anyone characterizing that as seeing Booth shoot Lincoln.  Implying that someone else could be the responsible party.  He has made that absurd argument in the Tippit situation as well.  It is very humorous to see him dance like a circus monkey at the absurdity of his own logic when applied outside his fantasy JFK narrative.

         Brush up on your history. There were other people/eyewitnesses inside the booth that did see Booth, the gun, etc. Major Rathbone even grappled with Booth and received a serious slashing during their altercation which occurred before Booth bailed from the balcony.

[John Iacoletti]

I am just highlighting the absurdity of John's contrarian approach to this case by applying it to other situations.  By his idiotic standard, no one actually saw Lincoln shot by Booth.

That's not my idiotic standard, that your idiotic false equivalence.  Nobody heard a shot and saw Oswald with a gun pointing at JFK's head.

[Richard Smith]

         Brush up on your history. There were other people/eyewitnesses inside the booth that did see Booth, the gun, etc. Major Rathbone even grappled with Booth and received a serious slashing during their altercation which occurred before Booth bailed from the balcony.

History goes out the window with John.  Follow along.  No one saw Booth pull the trigger.  There is overwhelming evidence that he did so - just as in the case of Oswald.  But using John's idiotic logic no one witnessed Booth shoot Lincoln.  They heard a gun shot.  Looked in that direction and saw Booth with a gun.  That doesn't rule out possibilities like Lincoln committing suicide and Booth picking up the gun or a shot being fired elsewhere in Ford's Theatre (or whatever else can be dreamed up with a contrarians license to imply baseless ad hoc explanations to counter the obvious conclusion).  John takes issue with the logical inference that this factual scenario can be characterized as someone witnessing Booth shoot Lincoln.  Just as he takes issue with characterizing witnesses as having seen Oswald shoot Tippit when they see Oswald holding a gun an instant after the shots were fired.  He also takes issue with characterizing anyone as having witnessed shots being fired with the rifle in the 6th floor window even though witnesses saw a rifle pointed at the JFK motorcade just an instant after hearing the shots (i.e. because they were not looking at the rifle at the exact moment it was fired).  I believe that scenario is sufficient to accurately characterize that situation as witnessing a shooting.  John does not although he apparently has a dimwitted recognition of the absurdity of his "logic" as applied to other contexts since he dances away from it like a circus monkey when it doesn't fit his desired conclusion.

[John Iacoletti]

History goes out the window with John.  Follow along.  No one saw Booth pull the trigger.  There is overwhelming evidence that he did so - just as in the case of Oswald.  But using John's idiotic logic no one witnessed Booth shoot Lincoln.  They heard a gun shot.  Looked in that direction and saw Booth with a gun.

So who looked in that direction and saw Oswald with a gun, "Richard"?  Who did Oswald then immediately grapple with and stab?  Who saw Oswald leap down from the window and yell "Sic Semper Tyrannis"?  If you don't understand the difference then you're hopeless.

[Andrew Mason]

So who looked in that direction and saw Oswald with a gun, "Richard"?  Who did Oswald then immediately grapple with and stab?  Who saw Oswald leap down from the window and yell "Sic Semper Tyrannis"?  If you don't understand the difference then you're hopeless.

So what you are saying is that a case based on circumstantial evidence can never be made out.  Unless you have multiple surviving eyewitnesses to a murder or a video of the murder, no one can ever determine who the murderer was.  That is not something reasonable people would ever agree on.

In this case, the circumstantial evidence against Oswald, which includes what he did after the assassination, is overwhelming.  Even without the evidence that Oswald attempted to kill General Walker (which would almost certainly be admitted as similar-fact evidence) the evidence leads to only one reasonable conclusion.

[John Iacoletti]

So what you are saying is that a case based on circumstantial evidence can never be made out.

I didn't say never.  But not when there is just a small amount of circumstantial evidence that is all weak and tainted, no.

In this case, the circumstantial evidence against Oswald, which includes what he did after the assassination, is overwhelming.

All I can say is, you're easily overwhelmed.

  Even without the evidence that Oswald attempted to kill General Walker (which would almost certainly be admitted as similar-fact evidence)

Let's talk about that evidence.  You have a secondhand report of something he supposedly told Marina, some photos of Walker's house, and an unsigned undated note in Russian that doesn't even mention General Walker.  What else?

the evidence leads to only one reasonable conclusion.

I completely agree.  The one reasonable conclusion is "undetermined".