Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Humor me  (Read 25217 times)

Offline Peter Kleinschmidt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
Re: Humor me
« Reply #112 on: March 30, 2019, 06:50:15 AM »
Advertisement
The late Gary Mack sums it up nicely:  ?there may have been a conspiracy to kill JFK, but I cannot prove it nor can anybody else?.
Wow! I am so impressed that you would choose a genius to quote from like Gary "I changed my mind more than a woman" Mack. How long did it take you to dig that one up? Be honest

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Humor me
« Reply #112 on: March 30, 2019, 06:50:15 AM »


Offline Paul May

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
Re: Humor me
« Reply #113 on: March 30, 2019, 06:52:52 AM »
Why have you even posted 194 times if you ?no longer play that game??

Why do you routinely ask the dumbest questions on this forum?  And that?s saying something.

Offline Paul May

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
Re: Humor me
« Reply #114 on: March 30, 2019, 07:00:25 AM »
?Consciousness of guilt? isn?t a ?fact?, it?s confirmation bias. Pot, kettle.

Of course a direct evidence case is stronger. Circumstantial evidence is all judgment calls and assumptions.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.  Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eyewitness does

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Humor me
« Reply #114 on: March 30, 2019, 07:00:25 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Humor me
« Reply #115 on: March 30, 2019, 07:00:38 AM »
Why do you routinely ask the dumbest questions on this forum?  And that?s saying something.

Why are you routinely unable to answer the dumbest questions on this forum?

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Humor me
« Reply #116 on: March 30, 2019, 07:09:51 AM »
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.

Not in this case.

Quote
Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.  Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence,

That is eyewitness testimony, just not of the crime, and has all the same problems.

Quote
or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission.

?Experts? are just as subject to bias and error as anyone else. In a real trial, this is tempered by having both sides present expert testimony.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Humor me
« Reply #116 on: March 30, 2019, 07:09:51 AM »


Offline Peter Kleinschmidt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
Re: Humor me
« Reply #117 on: March 30, 2019, 09:13:30 AM »
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.  Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eyewitness does
Too bad all the evidence was tainted.  You would think there would be more evidence other than LHO was in the DSBD that day.  If Oswald would have survived being shot I wonder how much he would have received for damages. What a terrible couple of days where two individuals were not protected appropriately, how embarrassing and I am sure you would agree.

Offline Paul May

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
Re: Humor me
« Reply #118 on: March 30, 2019, 09:11:33 PM »
Why have you even posted 194 times if you ?no longer play that game??

Addiction.  I love reading what you xxxxxx post. Just being honest.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Humor me
« Reply #118 on: March 30, 2019, 09:11:33 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Humor me
« Reply #119 on: March 30, 2019, 10:17:33 PM »
Addiction.  I love reading what you xxxxxx post. Just being honest.

So when you said you ?no longer play that game?, you didn?t really mean it?