Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[John Iacoletti]

1. and 2. Robert Frazier 5 H 59-62. 3. JFK autopsy xrays show no bullet in the body.

That doesn't tell you anything about whether there was a bullet in the body at Parkland...or in the limo.

4. Howard Brennan, Robert Jackson, Mrs. Cabell, Amos Euins all saw the rifle in the 6th floor window.

Not quite.  Cabell saw a "projection".  Euins saw a "pipe thing".

Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman and James Jarman also heard a bolt action rifle being fired 3 times in the same location.

None of them mentioned anything about hearing a bolt action rifle in their first day affidavits.  And BRW said TWO shots.

[John Iacoletti]

I accept that Oswald was the lone assassin because there is overwhelming, consistent evidence and no evidence that anyone else was involved.

There is not overwhelming, consistent evidence that Oswald killed JFK.  There's speculation and conjecture, and a little bit of weak, indirect, inconsistent, tainted, circumstantial evidence.

[Andrew Mason]

There is not overwhelming, consistent evidence that Oswald killed JFK.  There's speculation and conjecture, and a little bit of weak, indirect, inconsistent, tainted, circumstantial evidence.

So you would say that Vincent Bugliosi's 52 points are weak? How is it that one can point to 52 different circumstances, all pointing to Oswald as the murderer?

Even Oswald's brother and daughter and, until recently perhaps, his wife, accept that he did the deed.

[Matt Grantham]

Long term memory loss or not on the old board before it was taken down?

That list was picked apart and destroyed several times.

Usually popped up after some LN's mountain-of-evidence got flattened.

And you, apparently, as if that was evidence of anything.
[/quote

 Daughter did not sat she believes he did it Though there are two daughters I believe Mom said he did not do it

[Andrew Mason]

Long term memory loss or not on the old board before it was taken down?

That list was picked apart and destroyed several times. Usually popped up after some LN's mountain-of-evidence got flattened.

The point about circumstantial evidence is that each piece by itself means little. It is the collective effect (including even weak pieces of evidence) of all these circumstances that proves the case.  The question is: is it possible that there could be an innocent person to whom all these pieces of circumstantial evidence point?  The actions of Oswald immediately after the assassination are key pieces of evidence.  The answer that most reasonable people who have examined the evidence is "no". 

You do not attack circumstantial evidence by raising doubts about individual pieces of evidence. There is just too much of it in this case to succeed in doing that. You do it by showing that the circumstantial evidence is consistent with an innocent explanation.

And you, apparently, as if that was evidence of anything.

It is not evidence of anything except that three people who had the greatest interest in convincing themselves that Oswald was innocent could not reach that conclusion from this evidence.

[Matt Grantham]

  The question is: is it possible that there could be an innocent person to whom all these pieces of circumstantial evidence point?  The actions of Oswald immediately after the assassination are key pieces of evidence.

 A conspiracy's purpose would of course be aimed to create evidence to frame an individual, so a simple preponderance is not sufficient What do you think Oswald did immediately after?

[Bill Chapman]

A conspiracy's purpose would of course be aimed to create evidence to frame an individual, so a simple preponderance is not sufficient What do you think Oswald did immediately after?

Thanked his lucky stars when he wasn't held at the TSBD.
Made sure he wasn't caught at home.
Panicked and shot Tippit, the poor dumb cop.
Panicked at the TT

That's it. It's all over now.