See Martin, this is the difference between you and me, I really don't care who Killed Kennedy, I wasn't even born when it happened and thus have always approached this completely neutral with absolutely no bias.
I examine every piece of evidence scientifically, logically, use advanced mathematical probability and rely on some of the finest forensic analysists in the World.
Whereas you being a feral dog without a bone, have some sort of psychotic belief that virtually every piece of evidence must have some sort of flaw, you demand evidence that would require a time machine so you could see any action with your own eyes and if this was the case, superheroes like yourself would make the legal system obsolete but here in the real world we depend on the judicial process.
As I proved, your insane idea that "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" must include "conclusive evidence" was beyond absurd, and shows why from the very start you were debating from a position of idiocy, and this total miscomprehension of even the most basic legal theory totally explains why you don't accept logical criminal arguments.
JohnM
As I said: delusions of grandeur. HAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for the laugh! A fool beating his own drum is always funny, especially when the people he tries to fool know better!
In addition to your self-declared "supreme" legal, mathematical, scientific and forensic "skills", do you perhaps have another job, like washing dishes or does being a keyboard junkie take up all your time?
