JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
On the Trail of Delusion, Episode 11 with Bill Brown
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: John Iacoletti on February 01, 2025, 09:25:42 PM ---The only thing that Bill's "reconstruction" proves is that you can make any timeline "work" if you make a whole bunch of non-evidence-based assumptions that are specifically designed to make it work.
But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened".
--- End quote ---
As a retired lawyer, I would point out the distinction between "non-evidence-based assumptions" (i.e., pure speculation) and "reasonable inferences" from the actual evidence. In regard to the Tippit shooting, there is a mountain of actual evidence from which inferences can be drawn. Reasonable inferences, IMO, point decisively toward Oswald. This doesn't mean there are no discrepancies or loose ends - there almost always are, in every crminal case. IMO, however, there are no discrepancies or loose ends that point decisively away from Oswald, or from which reasonable inferences pointing decisively away from Oswald can be drawn.
I'm always kind of amused at the extent to which conspiracy theorists seem to feel compelled to play the role of defense counsel for Oswald. In my life as a lawyer, I used to always say that defense counsel (including some of my best friends) seem to live in some alternate universe where unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are vastly preferred to actual evidence and reasonable inferences.
Your statement But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened'" reflects the defense counsel mentality: "If my unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are not absolutely impossible, you must acquit my ciient." Uh, no. If the actual evidence and reasonable inferences point decisively to Oswald, we are free to reject the alternate universe of his innocence.
Charles Collins:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on February 04, 2025, 04:15:32 PM ---As a retired lawyer, I would point out the distinction between "non-evidence-based assumptions" (i.e., pure speculation) and "reasonable inferences" from the actual evidence. In regard to the Tippit shooting, there is a mountain of actual evidence from which inferences can be drawn. Reasonable inferences, IMO, point decisively toward Oswald. This doesn't mean there are no discrepancies or loose ends - there almost always are, in every crminal case. IMO, however, there are no discrepancies or loose ends that point decisively away from Oswald, or from which reasonable inferences pointing decisively away from Oswald can be drawn.
I'm always kind of amused at the extent to which conspiracy theorists seem to feel compelled to play the role of defense counsel for Oswald. In my life as a lawyer, I used to always say that defense counsel (including some of my best friends) seem to live in some alternate universe where unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are vastly preferred to actual evidence and reasonable inferences.
Your statement But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened'" reflects the defense counsel mentality: "If my unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are not absolutely impossible, you must acquit my ciient." Uh, no. If the actual evidence and reasonable inferences point decisively to Oswald, we are free to reject the alternate universe of his innocence.
--- End quote ---
Well said, thanks! Yes, reasonable inferences are a part of the process. The key word being reasonable.
Bill Brown:
--- Quote from: David Von Pein on February 03, 2025, 05:21:33 AM ---I watched the Fred Litwin/Bill Brown video, and I very much enjoyed it. So much detailed information in there. And the graphics and the added video that was recorded in Oak Cliff are excellent....and very helpful. Thank you both.
--- End quote ---
Thanks David. Much appreciated, buddy.
Bill Brown:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on February 04, 2025, 04:15:32 PM ---As a retired lawyer, I would point out the distinction between "non-evidence-based assumptions" (i.e., pure speculation) and "reasonable inferences" from the actual evidence. In regard to the Tippit shooting, there is a mountain of actual evidence from which inferences can be drawn. Reasonable inferences, IMO, point decisively toward Oswald. This doesn't mean there are no discrepancies or loose ends - there almost always are, in every crminal case. IMO, however, there are no discrepancies or loose ends that point decisively away from Oswald, or from which reasonable inferences pointing decisively away from Oswald can be drawn.
I'm always kind of amused at the extent to which conspiracy theorists seem to feel compelled to play the role of defense counsel for Oswald. In my life as a lawyer, I used to always say that defense counsel (including some of my best friends) seem to live in some alternate universe where unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are vastly preferred to actual evidence and reasonable inferences.
Your statement But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened'" reflects the defense counsel mentality: "If my unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are not absolutely impossible, you must acquit my ciient." Uh, no. If the actual evidence and reasonable inferences point decisively to Oswald, we are free to reject the alternate universe of his innocence.
--- End quote ---
Well said, Lance. I would like to quote you in the two Facebook groups I Moderate, if that'd be okay with you. Proper credit given, of course.
John Iacoletti:
Lance, I am equally amused at the extent to which the LN-faithful seem to feel compelled to play the role of prosecuting counsel for Oswald instead of objectively looking at the evidence. Reliable inferences cannot be made from unreliable evidence, or (the vast majority of the arguments in this case) pure speculation. It's not about "acquitting" anybody. It's about "just the facts, ma'am".
The only thing "decisive" here is the wishful thinking of the faithful and their chosen scapegoat.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version