Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The preponderance of the evidence  (Read 35992 times)

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #216 on: April 06, 2019, 07:51:30 PM »
Advertisement
Not what I asked for.

Exactly what you asked for?. what happened to the "open mind"?

There is a circumstantial case to be made for LHO (regardless of his guilt or innocence) being set up as a patsy. It's visible for anybody who wants to see?.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #216 on: April 06, 2019, 07:51:30 PM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3574
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #217 on: April 06, 2019, 08:12:21 PM »
Exactly what you asked for?. what happened to the "open mind"?

There is a circumstantial case to be made for LHO (regardless of his guilt or innocence) being set up as a patsy. It's visible for anybody who wants to see?.

Conjecture and innuendo isn?t very convincing.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #218 on: April 06, 2019, 08:13:02 PM »
Where?s Chapman when you need him?

Because the LN narrative would demand it.

Chapman is not here 24/7
But feels the love nevertheless
Can he now expect flowers & chocolate?
 ;)

Were Charles' questions wild accusations in your opinion?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2019, 08:35:20 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #218 on: April 06, 2019, 08:13:02 PM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #219 on: April 06, 2019, 08:40:25 PM »
Conjecture and innuendo isn?t very convincing.

And what exactly would that conjecture and innuendo be?

The bulk of the WC prosecutorial case against Oswald is conjecture.... That's what you get in a circumstantial case.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3574
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #220 on: April 06, 2019, 09:04:28 PM »
And what exactly would that conjecture and innuendo be?

The bulk of the WC prosecutorial case against Oswald is conjecture.... That's what you get in a circumstantial case.


And what exactly would that conjecture and innuendo be?

Yes. The unfair lineups, the disappearing initials on shells, and the magic partial palm print that shows up a week later. Just to name a few.

That the above is evidence of anyone knowingly and intentionally blaming/framing LHO as a patsy.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #220 on: April 06, 2019, 09:04:28 PM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #221 on: April 06, 2019, 09:18:23 PM »

And what exactly would that conjecture and innuendo be?

That the above is evidence of anyone knowingly and intentionally blaming/framing LHO as a patsy.

How is it conjecture that initials that were supposed to be on the shells but aren't? It's factual and it requires an explanation.

How is it conjecture to question an index card that shows up a week after the event, with an alleged print from Oswald taken from the rifle, when the FBI failed to find any prints on the rifle earlier? There are only two possible explanations; either Day screwed up big time or the print was added to the record after the fact.

And John said "Just to name a few". There are a whole lot more issues with evidence which one needs to overlook in order not to see the possibility of a frame up.

Now before you jump to conclusions; I am not saying Oswald was framed. I am saying that they needed to resolve the case as quickly as they could and Oswald's death provided them with the possibility to do so regardless of whether he really did it or not.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3574
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #222 on: April 06, 2019, 09:49:27 PM »
How is it conjecture that initials that were supposed to be on the shells but aren't? It's factual and it requires an explanation.

How is it conjecture to question an index card that shows up a week after the event, with an alleged print from Oswald taken from the rifle, when the FBI failed to find any prints on the rifle earlier? There are only two possible explanations; either Day screwed up big time or the print was added to the record after the fact.

And John said "Just to name a few". There are a whole lot more issues with evidence which one needs to overlook in order not to see the possibility of a frame up.

Now before you jump to conclusions; I am not saying Oswald was framed. I am saying that they needed to resolve the case as quickly as they could and Oswald's death provided them with the possibility to do so regardless of whether he really did it or not.


There are only two possible explanations; either Day screwed up big time or the print was added to the record after the fact.

innuendo and conjecture

This is more convincing to me:

The FBI confirmed that the print had been lifted from C2766 when they established that the adhesive material bearing the print also bore impressions of the same irregularities that appeared on the barrel of the rifle. Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. This finding was also confirmed by Arthur Mandella, and Ronald G. Wittmus.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #222 on: April 06, 2019, 09:49:27 PM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #223 on: April 06, 2019, 09:51:42 PM »
How is it conjecture that initials that were supposed to be on the shells but aren't? It's factual and it requires an explanation.


Whose initials are supposed to be on what shells and aren't?