Do LNs fret about the possibility their conclusions shield complicit parties?

[Joe Elliott]

Dulles, Helmes, etc......or are you just concerned about US democracy?

I am concerned about all Democracies. And acknowledge that not all enemies of Democracy are CTers. But most are.

[Joe Elliott]

It's nobody's fault but their own that the LN faithful have utterly failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.  Desperate attempts to shift the burden don't change that.

It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Not all possible doubts. Not beyond all reasonable and reasonable doubts. It?s even possible that there was a conspiracy. But it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty and no convincing evidence that others were involved.

[John Iacoletti]

It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Not all possible doubts. Not beyond all reasonable and reasonable doubts.

That's easy to say.  Not so easy to actually demonstrate.  Unless you just find unsupported conjecture to be "reasonable".

[Tom Scully]

What Word Does Dr Malcolm Perry Say, Invalid or Inviolate?......

Considering the consistency of the controversy, why do you think it matters whether, in 1967 Dr. Perry said
invalid or inviolate? Isn't it well documented, (see OP of this thread) that authority worked to muddle (examples: via suppression of the white house transcript 1327-c and electronic and film media as WC report described present at the press conference) the first medical eyewitness assessments of the throat wound?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15126-since-november-24-1963-has-jimmy-breslin-been-writing-a-script/
Since November 24, 1963, Has Jimmy Breslin Been Writing A Script

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, among others.

What's particularly revealing is that the same people who express outrage over the supposed violations of Oswald's rights are big supporters of Jim Garrison and his investigation in New Orleans.

Garrison was, of course, a government official - the New Orleans District Attorney - and his abuses of the rights of people were tenfold more outrageous than anything done to Oswald, real or imagined.

To be fair, a number of conspiracy authors - Lifton for example - are critical of what Garrison did. But the rank and file conspiracy crowd seldom express any criticism of Garrison while at the same time finding violations of Oswald's rights everywhere. Even the WC somehow violated his due process rights.

Let's be blunt: these (not all; just this particular element) are simply Oswald defenders not people interested in determining, as best as we can at this date, what happened that November day in Dallas.

[Andrew Mason]

Lifton has stirred this up during the past couple of days. In addition, why are you not concerned to the degree you might choose to be less
resolute in concluding what happened and where guilt lies, given that the Secret Service reported to the WC inability to obtain any
recorded media of the Perry/Clark 22 November afternoon Parkland Hospital press conference or even a transcript of that press
conference and the ARRB revelation of a copy of that transcript addressed to SS chief Rowley and stamped with the date November 25, 1963?

Some of you get bent out of shape when  others are accused of being complicit in the Assassination of JFK, but what is the degree of harm,
save for the arrest and prosecution of Clay Shaw, of accusations against individuals, vs. the degree of harm in firmly concluding that Oswald
and presumably Ruby, acted alone, two days apart?

November 24, 1963:

It is inconceivable that Oswald was not guilty (ie. of murder).

It is conceivable that Oswald was not acting alone.  But there is no evidence that anyone was helping him or putting him up to it.  On the available evidence, I would say that it would be highly unlikely.

So why anyone would get upset or concerned about a possibility that has no evidence (yet) to support it, despite 54 years of trying, is difficult to understand. 

Our system of justice is based on a simple concept: It is the duty of the state to investigate crimes and bring forward the all relevant evidence.  If the evidence is sufficient to identify a person or persons who committed the crime, and if there is a reasonable probability that a properly instructed jury could convict on that evidence, then the state has a duty to prosecute. No prosecutor would be able to identify, let alone prosecute, anyone other than Oswald as being criminally involved in the death of JFK or Officer Tippit.

When events occur, there will usually be evidence that can be discovered.  The lack of evidence after a thorough investigation and in the ensuing 54 years of no one has come forward with any evidence (eg. no deathbed confessions of a guilty conscience and a story that fits with the known facts), speaks volumes about the existence (or lack thereof) of other parties to these offences.

The single biggest travesty of justice in this case was the Garrison prosecution, in my view. It shows what happens when suspicion rather than evidence forms the basis for a prosecution.

[Jack Trojan]

Perhaps there were some paid shills to troll the JFK forums as LNers to help the cause, but my guess is that the vast majority of them are just playing the LNer Game of Trolls. They're more like Trump supporters willing to go down with the ship because they've come this far so WTH do they have to lose? Their dignity?

At any rate, LNers are a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. They resort to obfuscation and discrediting anyone whose argument contradicts their religious LNer stance. There isn't a single piece of evidence they are willing to accept that suggests Oswald was not a LN, so they resort to calling the CTs kooks, etc., when ironically THEY are in the minority.

Face it, the LN hypothesis is the fringe theory these days and you LNers haven't done a single thing to dispel that notion. Excuses, obfuscation, BS and ad homs do not = evidence let alone prove anything.  LNers lose every debate on this forum when they stray from logic and evidence or lack there of and never concede a single point against LNerism. It's untenable, intractable and textbook Dunning-Kruger Effect. Otherwise, you LNers are great!