That?s BS. You can acknowledge that evidence exists without having an ?explanation? for it. You think Oswald killed JFK, but can?t explain his motive for doing so.
Yes John; but I thought you were "a researcher"... desperately seeking to find the truth and solve the mystery of who really killed JFK at the behest of evil conspirators?
Not being a dodger; there are two things I will say about motive:
1. It is not necessary to prove a motive to convict an accused murderer. It can be "probative" in some cases. Like when the husband is suspected of killing his wife and he recently took out at a large insurance policy on her life.
2. When the victim of an assassination is the President of the United States (most would receive death threats every week): The motive is an aggrieved little "nobody" wanting to "bring down" a "somebody".
Even in the London mock trial of LHO: The defense attorney Gerry Spence did not push the "my client had no motive" ploy in his summation to the jury.
You want to know Oswald's motive for killing JFK? Ask Lee when you get to hell. Not being nasty to you John: You're dressed for it already.
