Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book

[Richard Smith]

An autopsy is ALWAYS taken in conjunction with totality of evidence to reach a conclusion about what happened and who was responsible for the crime.

So, you admit that your previous claim that "the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was" was wrong. Well, that's at least something.

No.  That statement is 100% correct.  An autopsy is conducted in every modern homicide case for that very reason.  You falsely and stupidly tried to imply that the autopsy results cannot be taken in context.  As though it was a completely separate event from the crime investigation that cannot be used in conjunction with other evidence.  In this case, the autopsy results can confirm or reject the WC's conclusion that Oswald was the assassin.  The WC concluded that he fired the shot from a particular location.  If the autopsy confirm that the shots originated from that location, then it has provided critical evidence to confirm that LHO was the assassin.  Why are you so desperate to remove all context?

[Martin Weidmann]

No.  That statement is 100% correct.  An autopsy is conducted in every modern homicide case for that very reason.  You falsely and stupidly tried to imply that the autopsy results cannot be taken in context.  As though it was a completely separate event from the crime investigation that cannot be used in conjunction with other evidence.  In this case, the autopsy results can confirm or reject the WC's conclusion that Oswald was the assassin.  The WC concluded that he fired the shot from a particular location.  If the autopsy confirm that the shots originated from that location, then it has provided critical evidence to confirm that LHO was the assassin.  Why are you so desperate to remove all context?

You falsely and stupidly tried to imply that the autopsy results cannot be taken in context.

Only in your imagination. In the real world I never implied any such thing.

In this case, the autopsy results can confirm or reject the WC's conclusion that Oswald was the assassin

Actually, no they can't.

The WC concluded that he fired the shot from a particular location.

So you keep telling us. What you don't tell us (for several months now) is what evidence that conclusion is based on. Why is that?

If the autopsy confirm that the shots originated from that location,

This is just plain stupid. An autopsy can not confirm where the shots originated from. At best it can tell you what the trajectory of the bullet was when it entered Kennedy's body. The trajectory, in combination with the position of the victim's body, can help determine from which general location the shots came from.

then it has provided critical evidence to confirm that LHO was the assassin.

And now you are going completely of the deep end.

After your failure, for months now, to provide the evidence that shows Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired, it's pretty sure that you can not prove he was there, never mind that he was the assassin. Even if the trajectory of the bullet would have pointed directly to the sniper's nest window (which it didn't), it still provides no proof whatever that Oswald was the assassin.

[John Iacoletti]

You have contradicted yourself so many times it is impossible to decipher.

He hasn’t contradicted himself even once. He contradicts the bogus strawmen you continually try to attribute to him.

An autopsy is ALWAYS taken in conjunction with totality of evidence to reach a conclusion about what happened and who was responsible for the crime. 

The autopsy doesn’t identify the murderer. Deal with being wrong rather than trying to backpedal your idiotic statement.

ALL evidence is taken in conjunction with other evidence in a case to determine to reach these conclusions.  Good grief.  It is only in the contrarian fantasy world that each individual piece of evidence is examined as though it fell from the heavens.  The classic contrarian example being to mock the fact that Oswald left his wedding ring at home on the morning on the assassination.  And analyze that as though it is being suggested that Oswald was a suspect solely for that reason alone with the logic that people do sometimes forget to wear their wedding ring without intending to assassinate the president.  Laughable.

What’s laughable is people like you thinking that “I think a murderer would do something like X” constitutes evidence of anything other than your own confirmation bias.

[John Iacoletti]

No.  That statement is 100% correct.  An autopsy is conducted in every modern homicide case for that very reason.

That’s ridiculously ignorant, even by “ridiculously ignorant Richard” standards. An autopsy (in theory) can provide evidence for things like cause and manner of death, time of death, medical evidence collection, and identification of the type of murder weapon. It cannot tell you who did the killing.

If the autopsy confirm that the shots originated from that location, then it has provided critical evidence to confirm that LHO was the assassin.

Unadulterated  BS, even in theory. Besides, in this particular case the available autopsy materials don’t even “confirm” what location the kill shot originated from, much less who fired it.

Stop lying about the evidence, “Richard”.

[Richard Smith]

Please notify every police department in the nation that an autopsy is not helpful in determining who committed a crime.  A lot of money saved.  Now that we have gone down that unnecessary contrarian rabbit hole back to the point.  Why not send the evidence that proves a CONSPIRACY in the assassination of JFK to the NY Times or other media outlet instead of expending so much time and effort on an Internet forum?  There are Pulitzer Prizes and fame awaiting anyone that accomplishes this.  So do they actually believe their own "evidence" or is this all a fraud?  Questions abound.

[John Iacoletti]

Please notify every police department in the nation that an autopsy is not helpful in determining who committed a crime.

Not necessary. You’re the only one ignorant enough to think so.

Now that we have gone down that unnecessary contrarian rabbit hole back to the point.  Why not send the evidence that proves a CONSPIRACY in the assassination of JFK to the NY Times or other media outlet instead of expending so much time and effort on an Internet forum?

Nobody said that the autopsy inconsistencies prove a conspiracy, Strawman “Smith”.

So do they actually believe their own "evidence" or is this all a fraud?

You certainly are one.

[Richard Smith]

In which we learn that an autopsy result that shows front and back wounds to JFK (i.e. two shooters) and then altered autopsy results to make consistent with the WC's conclusion that only one shooter was involved does not prove a conspiracy.  HA HA HA.  Comedy gold.   What is the implication here?  That two random shooters with no connection to one another just happened to appear by coincidence at the same place and time and shot JFK at the same moment.  And for some unknown reason, the authorities wanted to place all the blame on one shooter by altering the autopsy results?  Wow.