Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence  (Read 8563 times)

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2018, 10:55:19 AM »
Advertisement
He did dig deeper: He just dug up a 600 year-old-word  ;)
Seems he's getting all lathered up...

Did you have  to look it up on Merriam Webster, Bill?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2018, 10:55:19 AM »


Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2018, 06:08:56 PM »
BUMP

===================================

This reminds me of the Ben Holmes/Walt Cakebread show on ACJ. Aah, the memories.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2018, 08:22:46 PM »
Did you have  to look it up on Merriam Webster, Bill?

Is that a problem for you
Do you foam at the mouth when posting... don't go getting yourself in a lather, now
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 07:15:48 AM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2018, 08:22:46 PM »


Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1744
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2018, 10:36:31 PM »
BUMP

=================================

I created this thread versus hijacking other threads.  This thread is not intended to mock.  I ask in all sincerity...

Martin Weidmann, John Iacoletti,

Would you mind listing a piece of evidence in the case, which points to Oswald's guilt, that you DO consider authentic?  Or, if you'd rather, I can list various pieces of evidence and you can let me know if you accept it as valid or not.

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3725
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2018, 03:03:29 AM »
Did you have  to look it up on Merriam Webster, Bill?
Honestly, I had to look it up. I thought it meant some kind of bodily fluid :(

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2018, 03:03:29 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2018, 12:08:52 AM »
BUMP

=================================

I created this thread versus hijacking other threads.  This thread is not intended to mock.  I ask in all sincerity...

Martin Weidmann, John Iacoletti,

Would you mind listing a piece of evidence in the case, which points to Oswald's guilt, that you DO consider authentic?  Or, if you'd rather, I can list various pieces of evidence and you can let me know if you accept it as valid or not.

List various pieces of evidence that you think point to Oswald's guilt and define what you mean by "authentic".

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2018, 06:23:30 PM »
List various pieces of evidence that you think point to Oswald's guilt and define what you mean by "authentic".

Let me point out that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person on the face of the earth who can be identified as being on the scene during both murders

Take that little gem to the (blood) bank
« Last Edit: December 12, 2018, 07:03:38 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2018, 06:23:30 PM »


Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1434
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2018, 07:47:44 PM »
Let me point out that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person on the face of the earth who can be identified as being on the scene during both murders

Take that little gem to the (blood) bank

I'll add that it seems to me that someone who expects help, someone who is part of a larger conspiracy involving powerful elements or figures wouldn't shoot a police officer. Not in broad daylight, not in such an obvious manner.

Oswald's shooting of Tippit was the act of a desperate person, someone essentially fighting for his life. It's why he didn't worry about hiding the shells.

It's impossible here to prove a negative: that is prove that Oswald didn't have help. But if he did have help they must not have been people who he thought could free him if caught. Otherwise why blow away Tippit?