On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald and Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence

[John Iacoletti]

It would appear that Martin's and John's real objection is to the very nature of our justice system.

It's designed to determine legal guilt, not to determine what is actually true.  We hope they sometimes intersect. 

And this isn't a trial.

Not only does the defendant not have to testify, not only must guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not only does the hearsay rule block vast amounts of highly relevant testimony, but Martin and John would insist upon direct evidence even though the large majority of criminal cases are circumstantial.

Even circumstantial evidence has to be actual evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks for being humble but it's nice to have someone here who understands the basic concepts of Law and and can teach us all. Members like the "pom pom waving cheerleaders" above have been doing this for years and try to separate each and every piece of evidence without regard for the entire picture, for instance for just the rifle alone;

1) The rifle order was faked.
2) The money order was faked.
3) Kleins internal order was faked
4) Kleins didn't send the rifle.
5) Oswald didn't receive the rifle
6) The rifle in the backyard photos which is the same make and model as the sent rifle, was a different rifle.
7) Marina lied about taking the backyard photos of Oswald holding the rifle.
8] de Mohrenschildt saw a different rifle or lied
9) The rifle butt that Marina saw could be a block of wood.
10) The rifle was never in the blanket.
11) The rifle could have been planted
12) The prints on Oswald rifles were faked.
13) The 3 matching shirt fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt which matched the rifle fibers could have come from anywhere.

Cool strawman, bro.

But nobody has to posit or prove that anything was faked.

You have to prove that Oswald did it.  Your fantasy about who owned the rifle does no accomplish that.

[John Iacoletti]

You'll never be able to figure out that the things you just highlighted in your post above are indeed relevant because you continue to ISOLATE every single thing Oswald did instead of ADDING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.

You are operating under a delusion that says that several items on non-evidence, unsubstantiated claims about the evidence, and conjecture when combined somehow magically turn into evidence.

0 times 53 still equals 0.

When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens.

Only because you are looking at those "movements" through an Oswald-did-it lens.

[John Iacoletti]

Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.

What it suggests is your confirmation bias.

The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term). It might or might not be admissible and would carry no great weight if it were admitted.

Everybody who knew Oswald said that he kept to himself and didn't initiate conversations.  This was not unusual behavior by any stretch of the imagination, unless you are desperate for "evidence" of guilt.

Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.

You can't prove one made-up story with another made-up story.

[John Iacoletti]

Sorry, I've humored you past the breaking point. You are Exhibit A for why I have repeatedly sworn off forums such as this. Declare victory if you like, but you're simply a nutcase and not worth any more of my time.

Translation:  I can't respond to any of the points you made, so I am going to engage in posturing instead.

If you don't have the facts on your side, then pound the table.

[John Iacoletti]

Why do you insist on being so dishonest, Oswald went home with Frazier each and every weekend but one, so much more than a mere "couple of times" and when Oswald's baby was born, he went to Irving on Monday afternoon and stayed till Tuesday morning.

So it was 4 times on a Friday.  Yawn.

And the whole idea of going home on a weekend was so that Oswald could spend time with his family, like Friday night, all day Satu-rday and all day Sunday, so just spending a few hours with his children on Thursday night was hardly satisfactory.

Hardly satisfactory as decreed by "Mytton".  Therefore, Oswald killed Kennnedy.

And especially just turning up without informing and clearing his visit with the owner of the house was just rude.

He was "rude", therefore he killed Kennedy.

Btw, it's odd that you find the most inane things to be highly suspicious but this glaring anomaly you lie about and try to make excuses, that says a lot!

What's inane is what you consider to be evidence of murder.

[John Mytton]

So it was 4 times on a Friday.  Yawn.

Hardly satisfactory as decreed by "Mytton".  Therefore, Oswald killed Kennnedy.

He was "rude", therefore he killed Kennedy.

What's inane is what you consider to be evidence of murder.

So it was 4 times on a Friday.

Exactly, a set routine that was broken on the day Oswald retrieved his rifle.

Hardly satisfactory as decreed by "Mytton".  Therefore, Oswald killed Kennnedy.
He was "rude", therefore he killed Kennedy.
What's inane is what you consider to be evidence of murder.

As proven by Lance and confirmed by Bugliosi, is that you haven't the faintest clue of what court accepted evidence actually is, but keep dreaming and spewing your layman paranoia and making a complete fool of yourself.

JohnM