Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Martin Weidmann]

One hundred people would not constitute "corroboration"?  That was the question you were asked.  I just quoted your own response to that question.   And if they all did identify Oswald, you contend there is something inherently wrong with all witnesses identifying the same person.  Round and round it goes.  You attack the evidence as circumstantial, dismiss direct evidence as unreliable, and then suggest that there is something sinister if everyone identified the same suspect (but of course if one witness didn't ID Oswald you would cling to that as creating doubt and express no doubts about that witness).  This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

One hundred people would not constitute "corroboration"?  That was the question you were asked. I just quoted your own response to that question.

Which was that studies have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that, regardless of the number, it is a mathematical impossibility that all the witnesses identify the same man.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1

And if they all did identify Oswald, you contend there is something inherently wrong with all witnesses identifying the same person

I do not contend anything of the kind. I merely stated that studies have shown that. But you wouldn't be interested in science and studies, right? After all, you're not a Trump lover for nothing!

This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

Well, yes.. I can well imagine it would look that way to a guy (like you) who believes in fairytales.

I'm getting tired of your BS. I'm going to wait for a response by Dan. He seems far more reasonable than you will ever be.

[Richard Smith]

One hundred people would not constitute "corroboration"?  That was the question you were asked. I just quoted your own response to that question.

Which was that studies have shown beyond a reasonable dout that, regardless of the number, it is a mathematical impossibility that all the witnesses identify the same man.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1

And if they all did identify Oswald, you contend there is something inherently wrong with all witnesses identifying the same person

I do not contend anything of the kind. I merely stated that studies have shown that. But you wouldn't be interested in science and studies, right?

This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

Well, yes.. I can well imagine it would look that way to a guy (like you) who believes in fairytales.

I'm getting tired of your BS. I'm going to wait for a response by Dan. He seems far more reasonable than you will ever be.

Dan is the person who asked you the question.  We have learned that your position is that both circumstantial and direct evidence are unreliable and insufficient to prove Oswald's guilt.  Thereby rendering it impossible to use any evidence to ever prove Oswald's guilt.   Why is it so difficult for you to be honest?  Just say that your position is that there is no evidence that can prove Oswald's guilt to your satisfaction.  Why argue that position over and over but then refuse to acknowledge it?  Very bizarre.

[Martin Weidmann]

Dan is the person who asked you the question.  We have learned that your position is that both circumstantial and direct evidence are unreliable and insufficient to prove Oswald's guilt.  Thereby rendering it impossible to use any evidence to ever prove Oswald's guilt.   Why is it so difficult for you to be honest?  Just say that your position is that there is no evidence that can prove Oswald's guilt to your satisfaction.  Why argue that position over and over but then refuse to acknowledge it?  Very bizarre.

Dan is the person who asked you the question.

Exactly, and I gave him my answer. I now wait for his reply, so why are you still butting in with your stupid "conclusions", pathetic propaganda and misrepresentations. Let the adults talk for once, clown!

[Dan O'meara]

Anything conclusive rather than a mere assumption

And, as far as this case is concerned, what specific evidence would you consider to be "conclusive"?

[Martin Weidmann]

And, as far as this case is concerned, what specific evidence would you consider to be "conclusive"?

Ignoring all together my extensive answer to your question and simply repeating your first question?
That's the game you want to play?

Ok, the evidence is conclusive when it is presented, free from assumptions and speculations, in such a way that no reasonable other alternative conclusion can be reached on the basis of that evidence.

Or, as the Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement states;

Evidence that must, as a matter of law, be taken to establish some fact in issue and that cannot be disputed.

Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?

[Dan O'meara]

Ignoring all together my extensive answer to your question and simply repeating your first question?
That's the game you want to play?

Ok, the evidence is conclusive when it is presented, free from assumptions and speculations, in such a way that no reasonable other alternative conclusion can be reached on the basis of that evidence.

Or, as the Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement states;

Evidence that must, as a matter of law, be taken to establish some fact in issue and that cannot be disputed.

Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?

You've not answered the question Martin - what specific evidence in this case would you, personally, consider "conclusive"?

[Martin Weidmann]

You've not answered the question Martin - what specific evidence in this case would you, personally, consider "conclusive"?

I'm sorry if you did not understand or did not like my answer, but I have no other way of answering your question.

I notice you still keep ignoring my extensive reply to you and also did not answer my straight forward question. Why is that?

Here is the question again; Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?