Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[John Iacoletti]

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?

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.

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

Is that supposedly evidence too?  Which daughter, though?  I wasn't aware that either one of them accepted this.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

In this case, the collective effect also means little, because almost none of your "evidence" actually points to Oswald.

The actions of Oswald immediately after the assassination are key pieces of evidence.

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.

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.

No, there really isn't.  Once you try to enumerate it, that becomes patently obvious.

[John Iacoletti]

June said she wanted to see more evidence. Marina changed her mind years later.
That makes 2 out of 3 for your side.

You can count Rachel out too.

Uncle Vinnie says he could convict on 20% of Bug53
Your man would still fry, son.

Not unlike you and other LNers on this forum, Uncle Vinnie mistook arrogance for truth.

[John Iacoletti]

Thanked his lucky stars when he wasn't held at the TSBD.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Made sure he wasn't caught at home.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Panicked and shot Tippit, the poor dumb cop.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Panicked at the TT

Assumes facts not in evidence.

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

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[Bill Chapman]

edit

[Bill Chapman]

You can count Rachel out too.

Not unlike you and other LNers on this forum, Uncle Vinnie mistook arrogance for truth.

Your boy would fry, son

[Ray Mitcham]

Your boy would fry, son

Like many innocent people in the past.