...who doesn't give a xxxx how much Christa Pike has suffered due to her botched lethal injection execution?

Why did we ever get rid of the electric chair. I don't recall problems like this coming up with Old Sparky.

During past ten years, only 14 states and '45 Trump have performed executions. Five of those states are
former confederate states. States performing executions, except Utah, dominated by a cult, are least safe
most violent, "enjoy" lowest average education level and highest incarceration rates per capita.

So, why do it? Executioners end up with PTSD, and execution process costs much more than life sentences.
Some states award money to wrongfully convicted. Why not abolish and fund scholarships for criminal justice
education in the names of murder victims, with part of taxpayer funds saved from abolishing executions?

After a grisly triple murder, the state of Connecticut abolished the death penalty, anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Connecticut
"Cheshire murder case
One notable capital case in Connecticut was the Cheshire home invasion murders. The two murderers, Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, were both sentenced to death for the crime, and were among the inmates who had their sentences reduced as result of the state supreme court ruling. Survivor Dr. Petit condemned the state's decision to abolish capital punishment and spare the two criminals.[13]"

If you enjoy residing in a shithole state, cling to reactionary right wing mindset and dismiss scientific consensus.

Massachusetts is ranked 2nd safest state, no executions, lowesr per capita incarcerated, 241 per 100,000
twice % earned Bachelor's degrees as least educated state West Virginia, the state with least foreign born %
and highest  % white native born. Massachusetts has closed prisons due to lack of inmates. Alabama building
new prisons at construction cost of  $300,000 per bed !

https://wallethub.com/edu/safest-states-to-live-in/4566 

Firstly, Jack...YOU are the Nutter who inspired this thread.
You were posting your idiocy on another one of my threads that was off-topic, so I created this thread to move the subject here where anyone who believed in the Miracle On Elm Street could come and justify their silliness.

And I'm so glad you are ready to debate.
Let's go.
Firstly, just confirm that you believe Rowland invented seeing the man with the scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building. I know it's the fourth time I've asked you to answer this most simple yes/no question but you seem to lack the courage to just come out and state it plainly (and I don't really blame you).

And I'm so glad you are up for a debate.
You can kick this debate off with any piece of evidence or argument you would like.
Ask any question and I will endeavour to answer it as fully as I can.
But don't forget to answer the yes/no question.

What was the post? What was the thread? Why are you so vague about this?

This thread has convinced me at least that it is not only just possible but reasonably probable that an MC rifle could have been fired 3 times in less than 7 seconds and that JFK and JC were hit at Z223 and JFK was hit at Z313 AND the shots could be in the pattern of 1…..2.3 as per 75% witness recall.

Yes, the Carcano could be fired 3 times in 7 seconds or less if one takes little time to aim it. The likelihood is that the Oswald took almost 9 seconds or more to fire the three shots.

The 1st shot as a hit at Z223 fits much closer than either the Z190 1st shot idea by Andrew Mason or the  LN 1st shot which missed theory at Z-140 or earlier.

Your explanation ignores the fact the Z-film shows JBC began looking over his right shoulder at Z164, a reaction he said he made in reaction to the first shot. He was also adamant that the first shot did not hit him. Rosemary Willis also started to react almost at the same time that JBC did.

The criticisms of a Z223 1st shot seem to be:
A  The shooter would not have waited until Z224 to try a 1st shot
B. SS agent Hickey moving at Z143 is indication he heard a rifle preceding Z233.
C. The shooter having scored the head shot at Z312 would  not have fired a 3rd shot 2 secs after Z312.
D. The Willis girl stopped running completely by Z200 therefore  a shot must have been fired before Z223.

IMO, these criticisms are not well supported and presume that the reactions  of the Willis girl and SS agent Hickey were  due to the sound of a rifle shot  vs some other stimulus.

The Willis and Hickey movements are subject to interpretation. JBC on the other hand told us what he did in reaction to the hearing the first shot and we see him do just that at Z164.

So Imo Dan has presented a logical and plausible  3 shot scenario which fits with witness perception of last 2 shots fired rapidly and all 3 shots in as little as 6 secs. This fits closer with Harold Norman’s 4-5 sec recollection than any other proposal offered by LNs imo. It explains lack of awareness of SS agents prior to Z207.

His explanation avoids several inconvenient facts and relies on Norman being able to accurately estimate the elapsed time between the first and last shots for an event that caught everyone but the shooter by complete surprise. Under the circumstance, I doubt I would be able to provide an accurate estimate.

This is yet another blundering post in which you have (1) merely paraphrased claims you've read on pro-WC websites and (2) ignored documented facts that contradict those claims.

For starters, you don't even understand the nature of the mismatch between the shells found at the scene and the bullets allegedly removed from Tippit's body. The four shells found at the scene were two Winchester-Western shells and two Remington-Peters shells, but the four bullets that were allegedly removed from Tippit were three Winchester-Western bullets and one Remington-Peters bullet. We're not talking about a failure to "ballistically match" the shells and the bullets with Oswald's revolver, but about the fact that the wrong number of Winchester-Western bullets was found in Tippit's body and the wrong number of Remington-Peters bullets was found in Tippit's body, if we assume the bullets came from the shells found at the scene (and this is not to mention the problems with the chain of evidence of the four bullets supposedly removed from Tippit's body). 

Since you obviously get all of your information from kook websites, it's not surprising you are ignorant of the perfectly plausible explanation for the discrepancy between the makes of the bullets and the shells. There is a very real possibility Oswald fired 5 or 6 shots at Tippit, hitting him with 4, three Winchesters and one Remington. Only four of the shells were recovered, two of each. It is perfectly plausible that 1 or 2 shells were not found since the people who recovered the shells didn't know how many shots Oswald had fired.

Your lack of critical thinking skills prevents you from recognizing that the same discrepancy between shells and bullets exists no matter who fired the shots and thus would need explaining. The WC provided a perfectly plausible explanation. If you have one as good or better as to why that discrepancy exists, please post that so the rest of us can weigh it against the one provided by the WC.

Of course, you say nothing about the fact that not one of the four shells entered into evidence had Sergeant W. E. Barnes' or Patrolman J. M. Poe's initials on it, even though both men said they marked two of the shells. So, umm, were they both "mistaken" about having marked two of the shells, even though they were ordered to mark the shells? Their marks did not appear on the shells entered into evidence because those shells were not the same shells found at the crime scene but were later switched with the original shells, rendering the striation and primer-mark "evidence" as not only worthless but as proof of fraud.

As Detective Leavelle pointed, it was not uncommon for uniformed officers to claim they had followed proper procedures when they had not. The fact remains the shells found at the scene could only have been fired by the revolver in Oswald's possession when he was arrested, a revolver he tried to use to kill one of the arresting officers.

Once again, due to your poor critical thinking skills, you find it more probable that officers of the DPD engaged in a deliberate cover up of the assassination than that a uniformed officer forgot to do something he was supposed to do.

This brings us to another fact that you have ignored: the fact that the shells found at the scene were originally identified as .38 automatic shells, which are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. This is why the first police radio broadcast on the suspect said "the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." The police officer who initially identified the four shells at the scene as .38 AUTO shells was Sergeant Gerald Hill, an 8-year veteran of the Dallas police force and a military veteran who had served in the Korean War. In a 1986 interview, Hill said he knew the shells were .38-caliber automatic shells because he picked up one of them and examined it, and he added that he looked on the bottom of the shell. This is significant because, as mentioned, .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Go read any ballistic handbook and it will tell you it is easy to distinguish between .38 AUTO shells and revolver shells.

And again, you find it more probable that the DPD would engage in a cover up of the JFKA than that a cop would misidentify the shells and later refuse to acknowledge his error. The far more likelihood is he assumed the shells were found in a cluster which would be expected with a semiauto handgun. He failed to considered the likelihood that the shooter had manually dumped the shells on the ground in order to reload. Critical thinking just isn't your strong suit.

Your claims about the eyewitness identifications and the jacket found at the scene were refuted decades ago. I'm certain you haven't read Greg Doudna's ground-breaking research on the jacket.

Groundbreaking? <chuckle> Windbreaking would be a more apt description.

Yes, we know you can invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt. You have done that countless times over the course of decades.

For readers who want to get a better idea of the flimsy, fraudulent nature of the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting, I recommend my article "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice. I provide a good summary of the problems with the case against Oswald in the Tippit murder in my article "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald" .

People who read either or both of my articles after reading your OP are going to see that you either don't know about or have purposely ignored numerous facts that contradict your claims about the Tippit shooting.

People who read your articles will have wasted a chunk of their lives that they will never get back.

Dan O’Meara:
I had to start this thread in response to something a Nutter posted on another thread insinuating that Arnold Rowland made up seeing the man with the rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
Of all the crazy things the Warren Commission has forced Nutters to believe this has to be right up there.

Who posted it? Why so vague?

Every thread subject is a debate. You do not seem to know that. It is in the heading. Maybe that is why you do so poorly at it. You don't realize where you are at.

You are currently posting on this site.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate


Here I will read it to you. ...AND DEBATE.

Firstly, Jack...YOU are the Nutter who inspired this thread.
You were posting your idiocy on another one of my threads that was off-topic, so I created this thread to move the subject here where anyone who believed in the Miracle On Elm Street could come and justify their silliness.

And I'm so glad you are ready to debate.
Let's go.
Firstly, just confirm that you believe Rowland invented seeing the man with the scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building. I know it's the fourth time I've asked you to answer this most simple yes/no question but you seem to lack the courage to just come out and state it plainly (and I don't really blame you).

And I'm so glad you are up for a debate.
You can kick this debate off with any piece of evidence or argument you would like.
Ask any question and I will endeavour to answer it as fully as I can.
But don't forget to answer the yes/no question.