JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Matt Grantham:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on April 17, 2018, 05:31:46 PM --- 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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Matt Grantham on April 17, 2018, 08:58:45 PM --- 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?
--- End quote ---
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.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on April 17, 2018, 10:50:24 AM ---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?
--- End quote ---
One cannot. Most of the "53" aren't evidence at all. He left his wedding ring in a cup. He preferred Dr Pepper to Coke. He wasn't chatty with the cab driver. He didn't read the newspaper in the domino room that day.
--- Quote ---Even Oswald's brother and daughter and, until recently perhaps, his wife, accept that he did the deed.
--- End quote ---
Is that supposedly evidence too? Which daughter, though? I wasn't aware that either one of them accepted this.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on April 17, 2018, 05:31:46 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
In this case, the collective effect also means little, because almost none of your "evidence" actually points to Oswald.
--- Quote ---The actions of Oswald immediately after the assassination are key pieces of evidence.
--- End quote ---
No they aren't. You're taking what Oswald did and speculating that they are the actions of a guilty person. That's not evidence.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
No, there really isn't. Once you try to enumerate it, that becomes patently obvious.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Bill Chapman on April 17, 2018, 08:41:21 PM ---June said she wanted to see more evidence. Marina changed her mind years later.
That makes 2 out of 3 for your side.
--- End quote ---
You can count Rachel out too.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zpj7d5diYQ
--- Quote ---Uncle Vinnie says he could convict on 20% of Bug53
Your man would still fry, son.
--- End quote ---
Not unlike you and other LNers on this forum, Uncle Vinnie mistook arrogance for truth.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version