Your frequent message formatting errors, grammatical errors, and punctuation errors suggest you're in no position to be deciding who is a scholar and who is not, much less to be making sweeping pronouncements about JFKA evidence and research.
There's one person I know is not a scholar and that would be the person I am responding to.
If I wanted to get into a pissing contest with you, I could point out your grammatical errors as well but pointing out your logical errors already consumes too much of my time.
As for your comment about motive, ask any prosecutor and they'll tell you that in a complex or strongly contested case, establishing motive is very important for the prosecution--both in identifying a suspect in the first place and in persuading a jury of guilt in a trial.
Ask any detective about motive, and they'll tell you that one of the main things they seek to establish is whether the suspect had a motive. If they've identified two possible suspects and one suspect had no motive and the other suspect did have a motive, they will see the latter person as the more likely suspect, all other things being relatively equal.
It can be important, especially in proving premeditation, but it is not necessary. It is only necessary to prove the accused committed the act. If proving a motive was a requirement, I could walk down a busy sidewalk in an urban area and randomly shoot and kill some poor schmuck in front of 20 witnesses and if the prosecutors couldn't prove why I did it, I would beat the rap. Do you honestly think that would be the case?
We don't have to prove why Oswald did it to prove that he did do it.
I had to giggle when I read your first sentence (which you failed to punctuate correctly, but anyway. . . .):
All you do when you point out things like this reveal your pettiness.
LOL! Yeah, gee, why should they be objective?! Humm, maybe because being objective is a key principle of critical thinking? Maybe because being objective is a hallmark of credibility, education, and an open mind?
Objectivity is something you should go into a case with. It is not something you should maintain at the end of the process. When a jury returns a guilty verdict, they have ceased to be objective. They have determined to their satisfaction that the accused is guilty of the crime with which they are accused. It would be pretty silly to still be objective about the JFKA 62 1/2 years after it was committed. Are you honestly going to tell us you are objective about the case?
Perhaps you should change your forum name to John "I Don't Need No Stinkin' Objectivity" Corbett.
I don't need to change my forum name. I'll gladly say I don't need any objectivity. I figured out a long time ago Oswald was the assassin. You seem to be stuck in neutral.
I won't even bother to point out the double negative you just used.
Huh, in reading the description of the book on Amazon, I find myself thinking I might just read it. It sounds like an interesting book, assuming he did in fact write it. I heard years ago that he'd written a book but never gave it a second thought.
Recent Posts
