LOL. Try to follow along. No one is arguing that there should not be criminal trials. Where do you come up that kind of nonsense? Where is Capt. Strawman now that we need him? The obvious point is that an individual is not "innocent" merely because they die before a trial. That is absurd. We know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln even though he was never convicted of that act. To suggest he must be considered "innocent" because he was killed before getting a trial is false logic. The same principle goes for Oswald. Even if a defendant is found "not guilty" in a criminal trial that doesn't mean they are innocent. It simply means that a judge or jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of their guilt. They could, however, still be responsible for the crime. I've dumbed it down as much as possible for you.
The obvious point is that an individual is not "innocent" merely because they die before a trial. That is absurd. True, just as not all men convicted at trial are indeed guilty of the crime they were charged with. A jury verdict is a judgment call. One jury may convict, another may aquit
We know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln even though he was never convicted of that act. To suggest he must be considered "innocent" because he was killed before getting a trial is false logic. So the concept of innocent until proven guilty is false logic? I am not sure where you get it from that "we know" anything about this case? It seems to me it's far more a matter of assuming that what we are told is indeed correct. Having said that, I find the evidence for Wilkes Booth killing Lincoln persuasive enough to accept the premise that he did indeed kill the President.
The same principle goes for Oswald. No it doesn't. The flawed circumstantial case against Oswald is a lot less persuasive than the evidence against Wilkes Booth.
Even if a defendant is found "not guilty" in a criminal trial that doesn't mean they are innocent. It simply means that a judge or jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of their guilt. True. Nevertheless, the law says in such an event that the person who is found not guilty has to be considered innocent, regardless of what other opinion a third party may have about that.
I've dumbed it down as much as possible for you. You've done a good job of showing that your opinion about Oswald has nothing to do with whether he would be found guilty or innocent in a court of law. You would consider him to be guilty regardless. Who cares about reasonable doubt, prosecutorial misconduct, possible tampering with evidence? None of it matters to you. In your eyes, Oswald is guilty, period! The true mark of a religious zealot on a mission.....
