Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case?  Laughable.  The question is not whether some rube juror can be fooled by a dim witted defense attorney making a baseless claim like evidence was planted but whether Oswald committed the crime.  And the evidence confirms that he did.  Just like OJ. At best (even though you cannot support it), you are making a procedural argument to exclude evidence.  Not a real rebuttal of the evidence itself.

Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case?  Laughable.

How else would a defense lawyer review evidence? What's the difference between the OJ trial and the JFK case?

You, like the idiot that you are, claimed that manipulation of evidence was not a possibility because; "If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail"

And I confronted you with the truth that is that OJ did exactly that and got off. Remember Mark Fuhrman and the "planted glove" and what about the missing blood sample? And yet, you stupidly claim it couldn't happen!

At best (even though you cannot support it), you are making a procedural argument to exclude evidence.

A procedural argument that can only be made if procedures were not followed, like a lack of chain of custody or a Detective "walking around" for hours with a revolver and then handing it in with initials on it of cops that were not even present at the arrest.

You're making a fool of yourself..... but hey, what else is new?

[Bill Brown]

It wasn't Marcia Clark's fault.  Christopher Darden is the person who screwed the pooch.

[Martin Weidmann]

It wasn't Marcia Clark's fault.  Christopher Darden is the person who screwed the pooch.

Agreed

[John Iacoletti]

Irrelevant to Richard Smith's valid point.

When arrested, Oswald had both Remingtons and Winchesters loaded into the revolver taken from him; three of each.

"the revolver taken from him".  LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

Wrong.  How does a DPD officer possessing the evidence leave "the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation"?  That is baseless and stupid even coming from you.  The mere baseless opinion that something is "possible" does not rebut the evidence.

The mere baseless opinion that a revolver was "taken from Oswald" doesn't make it so.

[John Iacoletti]

Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case?  Laughable.  The question is not whether some rube juror can be fooled by a dim witted defense attorney making a baseless claim like evidence was planted but whether Oswald committed the crime.

What we've learned is that some rube guy who goes by "Richard" can be fooled into thinking that WC "conclusions" are evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

LOL.  You see no evidentiary value in Oswald having a pistol in his possession when arrested?

Except he didn't.  Or a revolver for that matter.  At the time Oswald was arrested, the alleged revolver was in the alleged possession of the alleged Bob Carroll.