JFK Assassination Forum

For once you are right. I do have a big ego. And with good reason.

And that alone makes you the last person in the world anybody should try to have a normal conversation with.

What a pathetic little man you really are. I truly feel sorry for you.

I've been debating the JFKA online for about 35 years on various forums. The conspiracy hobbyists' game hasn't changed much over the years. They act like a defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty as hell and his only hope is to try to confuse the jury by bringing up red herring objections to the evidence against his client.

This reminds me of one of two criminal trials on which I served as a juror. It was a simple check forgery case. The cops had gotten a confession from the defendant by offering him a diversion program which would have kept him out of jail. Then they looked at his priors and told him he wasn't eligible for the program at which time he recanted his confession. He never actually signed the confession. In the meantime he had given the cops several handwriting samples. One of them was what was called a London Letter. The idea being that even if a suspect tries to disguise his handwriting, he will eventually lapse back into his own. The other thing he did was write out the same names that were on the forged checks.

The irony is if the defendant had just clammed up and asked for a lawyer from the start, there would have been no case against him. The defense attorney hinted at that in his opening statement. The prosecution had the cops testify about the oral but recanted confession. A handwriting expert testified the forged checks were written in the defendant's handwriting. They put into evidence the forged checks and the handwriting sample. The defense attorney presented no witnesses. His whole defense was to pooh-pooh the prosecution's case. He scoffed at the cops claim of an oral confession and the handwriting experts testimony. Then he said "What evidence do they have? A piece of paper?" as he picked up one of the checks and tossed it back down dismissively.

Then we got back into the jury room and looked at the handwriting samples and compared them to the forged checks. You didn't need to be a handwriting expert to know they were written by the same hand. The signatures looked like carbon copies. We reached a guilty verdict in about a half hour and didn't even have to consider the cops claim of a confession or the expert testimony.

The WC presented far more evidence of Oswald's guilt in both homicides than was presented by the prosecution in the forgery case. Like the defense attorney in that case who was dealt a losing hand, all the conspiracy hobbyists can do is pooh-pooh the evidence against Oswald. Their problems is that there is just so damn much of it that it becomes ridiculous to argue for Oswald's innocence. The forensic evidence alone removes any and all doubt that Oswald murdered two men that day, but that doesn't stop the conspiracy hobbyists from coming up with one excuse after another for why we shouldn't believe what the evidence is screaming at us. OSWALD DID IT!!!

Thank you for showing why you are not a credible person to talk to.

You have been warned. Try to mess with me from now on and be crushed as the weasel you are.

<chuckle>

You've been exposed as a liar. The letter that you claimed showed Day had shown a "massive panic" doesn't say anything the remotely indicates anything of the sort. You simply fabricated the part about Day panicking about Frazier's polygraph. Why don't you just admit your deceit and move on.

Thank you for showing why you are not a credible person to talk to.

You have been warned. Try to mess with me from now on and be crushed as the weasel you are.

The honest way of dealing with it was to admit you made a mistake and leave it at that. I would have accepted and respected that and moved on.

The crappy LN way is to try to weasel out of it by making up some bogus issue.

You got schooled and even if your arrogant ego has a problem with it, take your loss and I won't embarrass you further.

You're a little man who thinks he knows everything better than everybody else, but you walked straight into this one which shows you really know nothing at all.

So far, I've been kind to you. You tried to test me once and failed miserably. Care to test me again?

The honest way of dealing with it was to admit you made a mistake and leave it at that. I would have accepted and respected that and moved on.

The crappy LN way is to try to weasel out of it by making up some bogus issue.

You got schooled and even if your arrogant ego has a problem with it, take your loss and I won't embarrass you further.

You're a little man who thinks he knows everything better than everybody else, but you walked straight into this one which shows you really know nothing at all.

So far, I've been kind to you. You tried to test me once and failed miserably. Care to test me again?

You've been exposed as a liar. The letter that you claimed showed Day had shown a "massive panic" doesn't say anything the remotely indicates anything of the sort. You simply fabricated the part about Day panicking about Frazier's polygraph. Why don't you just admit your deceit and move on.