Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Charles Collins]

Suggesting that the fake ID could possibly have been planted, or that the Klein’s documentation could possibly have been doctored, etc. is pure speculation. And without any proper evidence, and an allegation that it did happen, this speculation would not have been allowed in a courtroom. As previously stated, the rules in place in the courts are there to try to ensure that a fair trial happens. There will never be a true trial for LHO. However when we are forming our own opinions as to what happened on 11/22/63, if we intend to be fair and unbiased, I think it is a good idea to therefore keep in mind the rules that apply to the courts.

[Martin Weidmann]

Suggesting that the fake ID could possibly have been planted, or that the Klein’s documentation could possibly have been doctored, etc. is pure speculation. And without any proper evidence, and an allegation that it did happen, this speculation would not have been allowed in a courtroom. As previously stated, the rules in place in the courts are there to try to ensure that a fair trial happens. There will never be a true trial for LHO. However when we are forming our own opinions as to what happened on 11/22/63, if we intend to be fair and unbiased, I think it is a good idea to therefore keep in mind the rules that apply to the courts.

Suggesting that the fake ID could possibly have been planted, or that the Klein’s documentation could possibly have been doctored, etc. is pure speculation.

Just like that it wasn't faked or planted is, without proper authentication, pure speculation also.

And without any proper evidence, and an allegation that it did happen, this speculation would not have been allowed in a courtroom.

A judge will decide what he allows in as evidence and what not. What you fail to understand is that nobody needs to speculate about a piece of evidence being faked or planted. When evidence is introduced without a solid chain of custody and/or proper authentication it is sufficient to question the veracity of that piece of evidence.

However when we are forming our own opinions as to what happened on 11/22/63, if we intend to be fair and unbiased, I think it is a good idea to therefore keep in mind the rules that apply to the courts.

Fair enough, but keep also in mind that a trial is by defenition a adversary system in which evidence introduced by one party can be challenged by the other. No allegation or suggestion of fakery or tampering has to be made. It does suffice to question the chain of custody and/or authenticity of a piece of evidence to establish it's veracity or lack there of.

On the other hand, introducing something as evidence doesn't automatically justify the conclusion that that evidence is authentic and/or even provides proof for what has been alleged.

[John Iacoletti]

What? Marina Oswald was his wife, and Oswald authorised his wife to receive mail.

But enough with the ridiculous diversions, the fact that you don't want to explain the reason why Oswald put A J Hidell on the post box application is duly noted.

I don’t need to “explain a reason”. You can either show that Oswald used Hidell as an alias for himself or you cannot.

[John Iacoletti]

     
This is particularly startling and noteworthy when one stops to realize that those making the allegation of conspiracy necessarily have the burden of proof. I mean, it makes no sense for A to say to B, “I allege that there is a conspiracy here. Now you prove there isn’t.”

A) I made no such allegation
B) Vincent Bugliosi. LOL.

It also makes no sense for A to say to B, “I allege that Oswald did it. Now prove there was a conspiracy here.”

Yes that Vincent Bugliosi who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions. Btw "John", how many cases have you successfully defended?

False appeal to authority and to credentials. This isn’t a felony jury trial. Next?

[John Iacoletti]

It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented, you will continue your game of asking for evidence which you know doesn't exist and then claim some sort of hollow victory, for instance your reason this time is that the writing on the order wasn't authenticated, give me a break.

And you will continue to play the game of pretending that the evidence that does exist is “rock solid” and conclusive. And around we go.

It is indeed pointless to try to have a serious discussion with a faith-based ideologue.

[John Iacoletti]

I certainly did Martin but using the above example, if a direct print out from Kleins very own Microfilm business records isn't absolute Rock Solid evidence then there is nothing that will convince the hardcore conspiracy theorist.

You don’t know it’s a “direct printout” from the “missing” microfilm. And you don’t know if it is even consistent with Klein’s’ other “business records”. That’s the only one available to look at.

No offence, but all you are doing is regurgitating the exact same arguments that you were making a decade ago.

[John Iacoletti]

Yet Kleins advertised the 40 inch rifle with a scope for many months? Go figure!

Didn’t you just get done trying to argue that Klein’s didn’t care about the accuracy of their advertisements? Talk about trying to have it both ways.