Warren Commission was correct........Oswald acted alone

[MacTheKnife]

Occam's razor. In order to avoid the simplest explanation, you have to construct ever larger, ever more complex conspiracies, and somewhere along the way, you have to assume large facts not in evidence, like, "Can you imagine how easy it would be for the CIA and the Mossad to frame a patsy with all their resources?", which substitutes for evidence that they did. Pick a few details that may have plausible alternate explanations, ignore the rest of the evidence, and imagine large numbers of shadow people pulling strings in the background, and soundly ridicule anyone who dares say otherwise.

Occam’s razor isn’t always right.

Well, as I said, I think that Oswald was promised support in return for killing Kennedy. This is strictly my opinion but it is based on the known facts; not “could haves” like the other guys rely on.

We know Oswald showed up that day without his pistol. We know he wasted precious time after he killed Kennedy to go home and get it. I theorize any reasonable person would have collected it prior to needing it.
Again, I theorize, that if something isn’t important at noon on Monday but is important at noon on Tuesday, that means one thing…the circumstances have changed during that 24 hour period. Events changed.

You couple that with the following knowns:

Oswald was one of the few (if not the only) person(s) to defect to Russia, then defect back to the US during the cold war. Was able to leave Russia with his wife. Was quite active in politics while he was back here. And that he just happens to show up at the TSBD on that day seems like too remarkable a coincidence to me in my theory on what happened to lead up to JFK’s assassination. This is pure speculation based only on known facts.

Oswald, in the month before killing Kennedy, visited the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City. The CIA handlers who were watching the embassies saw this. This was not reported to the WC. And then in the next 30 days or so, he ends up killing Kennedy. Seems to me like that was indicative of those nations being involved. My point isn’t to indict the CIA but the fact that they have him visiting the embassies down there is informative to my theory that there may have been other nations involved. This also comes from Emmy Award Winning Frontline on PBS; not the kook-of-the-month website.

Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?

You are being very in-coherent for the most part in the above post....not even to mention you contradict yourself.

Also...I already gave you a very logical reason why Oswald did not take his pistol to work....he had no need for it....as in....he did not plan to shoot JFK. If he had planned to shoot JFK...most likely he would have taken his pistol with him...as in it could have come in handy during his escape from the scene......but when he realized he had been set up....he most likely realized they might come for him next...thus he went directly home to get his pistol for protection.

You say you believe the Warren Commission report and then you turn around and say other nations were involved??? Do you not know the Warren Commission reported that Lee was the only one involved in the assassination....has someone on here persuaded you otherwise?


Here is something that might help you to get a grip.......I challenge you to a mock trial....you are the prosecutor and I am Oswald's defense attorney....I will demonstrate to you how a competent attorney would shred your extremely weak evidence.

No.

I said the physical evidence of what happened that Day in Dallas when JFK was killed is in Lockstep correctness with the WC.

I do have reservations about the WC’s conclusion that Oswald did it all by himself.

The reservations are based on known facts. Not your cartoonish conclusions.

So you only agree with part of the Warren Commission report?

Well there may be some hope for you.

Did you ever see the James Files interview on video?.....he speaks with remarkable detail regarding the assassination.....seems very credible ......as far as I know the FBI has never investigated his statements

They are bulletproof on the physical evidence.

On Motivations....ironically you and some others have something in common. As you know the WC is bulletproof on the physical evidence and your entire resistance is quickly reduced to two words: “could have”. “Pure garbage” is also acceptable but literally your arguments are that _____ could have happened followed by ______ could have happened then your crusher is that ______ could have happened.

The ones who buy the lone nut theory have a similar problem. Why did LHO who was meticulous enough to create a wrapper for his rifle forget his gun if he was going to waste precious time to go home and get it after the fact? Their answers range from “who cares” to LHO being mentally ill. Just like your “could have” nonsense, those explanations are open ended and could be applied to anything while not addressing the known facts.

LHO wasted time most would have spent leaving Dallas (if possible) to go get his pistol when he could have collected it before.

LHO visited enemy embassies in the months preceding the assassination of JFK.

LHO is one of the few double defectors and just happens to wind up shooting JFK.

Their assessment of mental illness is likely valid. But for whatever mental screws loose he had, he was a functional nutcase.

Again you are being incoherent for the most part. I suggest if you try to travel less ground and be very careful with your language you might make some sense.

Again, you seem not to understand that the burden of proof of proof of Oswald's guilt is on the state which means since you are trying to defend their allegations the burden of proof is also on you.

You also need to understand in a court of law that your evidence must overcome any reasonable doubt in regards to guilt....thus when you cite some piece of evidence and then say this indicates whatever....but then the defense comes back and says no it could indicate this or could indicate that...then the jurors must decide what makes the most truth and if the defenses 'could haves' are possible then reasonable doubt will exist in the minds of the jurors.

None of your evidence overcomes reasonable doubt. Not even to mention you interject your opinions into your statements like it is the absolute truth.

You have failed to make a case just as the Warren Commission did...and there is no doubt Oswald would have been found not guilty in a real court of law where his attorney would have been able to cross examine and expose the idiocy of the Warren commission's allegations.

Obviously you are not very intelligent and you lack good analytical skills not even to mention logic and just plain common sense and your dishonesty has also been noted as in when you attempt to twist and alter what others have said in Oswald's defense. and that is probably true of most of those who swallow the Warren Commission's theory and allegations.

Once again your efforts are quite pathetic.

 

[MacTheKnife]

The alternatives to your contentions are as follows:

Someone posed as Oswald to rent a PO Box.
Someone using an alias that Oswald was known to use bought a rifle.
Someone manufactured a picture of Oswald holding the rifle.
Someone stole the rifle out of Oswald’s garage.
Someone planted Oswald's rifle in the TSBD
Someone got Mr. Frazier to lie about the package Oswald brought work that day.
Someone got Mr. Frazier to invent a story about Oswald bringing curtain rods.
Someone had to manufacture evidence of Oswald’s fingerprints on the rifle.

Those are the minimum requirements for the alternative you propose. We’re leaving out Oswald being placed at the TSBD that day and forcing Oswald to take the evasive moves after he shot Kennedy.

And someone had to get out of the TSBD without being seen.

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was the gunman.

There is no logical reason for you to believe half of the stuff you’ve posted in this thread alone. There are no logical conclusions on your part.

Occam's razor. In order to avoid the simplest explanation, you have to construct ever larger, ever more complex conspiracies, and somewhere along the way, you have to assume large facts not in evidence, like, "Can you imagine how easy it would be for the CIA and the Mossad to frame a patsy with all their resources?", which substitutes for evidence that they did. Pick a few details that may have plausible alternate explanations, ignore the rest of the evidence, and imagine large numbers of shadow people pulling strings in the background, and soundly ridicule anyone who dares say otherwise.

Occam’s razor isn’t always right.

Well, as I said, I think that Oswald was promised support in return for killing Kennedy. This is strictly my opinion but it is based on the known facts; not “could haves” like the other guys rely on.

We know Oswald showed up that day without his pistol. We know he wasted precious time after he killed Kennedy to go home and get it. I theorize any reasonable person would have collected it prior to needing it.
Again, I theorize, that if something isn’t important at noon on Monday but is important at noon on Tuesday, that means one thing…the circumstances have changed during that 24 hour period. Events changed.

You couple that with the following knowns:

Oswald was one of the few (if not the only) person(s) to defect to Russia, then defect back to the US during the cold war. Was able to leave Russia with his wife. Was quite active in politics while he was back here. And that he just happens to show up at the TSBD on that day seems like too remarkable a coincidence to me in my theory on what happened to lead up to JFK’s assassination. This is pure speculation based only on known facts.

Oswald, in the month before killing Kennedy, visited the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City. The CIA handlers who were watching the embassies saw this. This was not reported to the WC. And then in the next 30 days or so, he ends up killing Kennedy. Seems to me like that was indicative of those nations being involved. My point isn’t to indict the CIA but the fact that they have him visiting the embassies down there is informative to my theory that there may have been other nations involved. This also comes from Emmy Award Winning Frontline on PBS; not the kook-of-the-month website.

Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?

Perhaps he didn't take his pistol because he didn't expect to escape the School Book Depository. Perhaps he wasn't sure he had the nerve to do it or maybe the pistol was in Oak Cliff while Oswald spent the night at Ruth Payne's house with Marina. Whatever, I don't think it's a sign of conspiracy.

Ok.

But the known fact remains that we know he went home to get it.

So I reject the not needing it because his survival was a surprise theory. I think most reasonable people would get out of dodge if they surprisingly survived a crime they didn’t expect to live through.

Nerve? He brought the murder weapon. That’s a sign of enough nerve for most people I suspect.

As for the distance, it was proven that he had time and the means to collect the pistol.

Good give and take

I agree he had time AFTER the assassination to get the pistol. But, he had ridden from work with Buell Frazier to Ruth Payne's in Irving and then TO work from Irving, so there wasn't time to go to get the pistol on the morning of the assassination.

If he had planned to assassinate jfk he had days to make sure he would have had the pistol available on the morning of the assassination....you are not being credible.

You seem to forget that in the shot taken at General Walker there was excellent and very intelligent planning going on....but when it comes to JFK you try to claim he did everything on the spur of the moment with absolutely no planning.....ridiculous.

Get real boyo or take a hike.

You add nothing to this discussion but your opinion which carries no weight. Not at all.


Why Did Lee Harvey Oswald Deny Shooting President Kennedy?

 

[MacTheKnife]

True. All we really know is that he didn't.

Thats true.

And that doesn’t strike you as a bit strange?

Perhaps. But, perhaps he was just excited and forgot. On this issue, I just don't know.

There is much you do not know for sure. But you have your opinion...like that means anything.

 

[candycorn]

Again you are being incoherent for the most part. I suggest if you try to travel less ground and be very careful with your language you might make some sense.

Opinion noted…and laughed at.

Again, you seem not to understand that the burden of proof of proof of Oswald's guilt is on the state which means since you are trying to defend their allegations the burden of proof is also on you.

Perhaps you should try to travel less ground….. "burden of proof of proof of Oswald’s” Too damn funny

You also need to understand in a court of law that your evidence must overcome any reasonable doubt in regards to guilt....thus when you cite some piece of evidence and then say this indicates whatever....but then the defense comes back and says no it could indicate this or could indicate that...then the jurors must decide what makes the most truth and if the defenses 'could haves' are possible then reasonable doubt will exist in the minds of the jurors.

Any reasonable person looking at the evidence would conclude Oswald was guilty. All of your “could haves” don’t mean a thing.

None of your evidence overcomes reasonable doubt. Not even to mention you interject your opinions into your statements like it is the absolute truth.

You have failed to make a case just as the Warren Commission did...and there is no doubt Oswald would have been found not guilty in a real court of law where his attorney would have been able to cross examine and expose the idiocy of the Warren commission's allegations.

Obviously you are not very intelligent and you lack good analytical skills not even to mention logic and just plain common sense and your dishonesty has also been noted as in when you attempt to twist and alter what others have said in Oswald's defense. and that is probably true of most of those who swallow the Warren Commission's theory and allegations.

Once again your efforts are quite pathetic.

Yet here you are trying to get someone, anyone, to believe in your “would haves” and “could haves”….it is the most pathetic thing around.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Mafia boss speaks.......................

 

[hunarcy]

Again you are being incoherent for the most part. I suggest if you try to travel less ground and be very careful with your language you might make some sense.

Opinion noted…and laughed at.

Again, you seem not to understand that the burden of proof of proof of Oswald's guilt is on the state which means since you are trying to defend their allegations the burden of proof is also on you.

Perhaps you should try to travel less ground….. "burden of proof of proof of Oswald’s” Too damn funny

You also need to understand in a court of law that your evidence must overcome any reasonable doubt in regards to guilt....thus when you cite some piece of evidence and then say this indicates whatever....but then the defense comes back and says no it could indicate this or could indicate that...then the jurors must decide what makes the most truth and if the defenses 'could haves' are possible then reasonable doubt will exist in the minds of the jurors.

Any reasonable person looking at the evidence would conclude Oswald was guilty. All of your “could haves” don’t mean a thing.

None of your evidence overcomes reasonable doubt. Not even to mention you interject your opinions into your statements like it is the absolute truth.

You have failed to make a case just as the Warren Commission did...and there is no doubt Oswald would have been found not guilty in a real court of law where his attorney would have been able to cross examine and expose the idiocy of the Warren commission's allegations.

Obviously you are not very intelligent and you lack good analytical skills not even to mention logic and just plain common sense and your dishonesty has also been noted as in when you attempt to twist and alter what others have said in Oswald's defense. and that is probably true of most of those who swallow the Warren Commission's theory and allegations.

Once again your efforts are quite pathetic.

Yet here you are trying to get someone, anyone, to believe in your “would haves” and “could haves”….it is the most pathetic thing around.

I think it's funny that they want to hold YOU to "burden of proof" when they offer no proof at all. I can't really see what's being said but the whole idea makes me laugh. The Warren Commission offers proof and MOST of the Warren Commission's proof is confirmed by House Select Committee on Assassinations. They have magazine articles and books which offer no proof at all...just rumor and innuendo.

 

[candycorn]

Again you are being incoherent for the most part. I suggest if you try to travel less ground and be very careful with your language you might make some sense.

Opinion noted…and laughed at.

Again, you seem not to understand that the burden of proof of proof of Oswald's guilt is on the state which means since you are trying to defend their allegations the burden of proof is also on you.

Perhaps you should try to travel less ground….. "burden of proof of proof of Oswald’s” Too damn funny

You also need to understand in a court of law that your evidence must overcome any reasonable doubt in regards to guilt....thus when you cite some piece of evidence and then say this indicates whatever....but then the defense comes back and says no it could indicate this or could indicate that...then the jurors must decide what makes the most truth and if the defenses 'could haves' are possible then reasonable doubt will exist in the minds of the jurors.

Any reasonable person looking at the evidence would conclude Oswald was guilty. All of your “could haves” don’t mean a thing.

None of your evidence overcomes reasonable doubt. Not even to mention you interject your opinions into your statements like it is the absolute truth.

You have failed to make a case just as the Warren Commission did...and there is no doubt Oswald would have been found not guilty in a real court of law where his attorney would have been able to cross examine and expose the idiocy of the Warren commission's allegations.

Obviously you are not very intelligent and you lack good analytical skills not even to mention logic and just plain common sense and your dishonesty has also been noted as in when you attempt to twist and alter what others have said in Oswald's defense. and that is probably true of most of those who swallow the Warren Commission's theory and allegations.

Once again your efforts are quite pathetic.

Yet here you are trying to get someone, anyone, to believe in your “would haves” and “could haves”….it is the most pathetic thing around.

I think it's funny that they want to hold YOU to "burden of proof" when they offer no proof at all. I can't really see what's being said but the whole idea makes me laugh. The Warren Commission offers proof and MOST of the Warren Commission's proof is confirmed by House Select Committee on Assassinations. They have magazine articles and books which offer no proof at all...just rumor and innuendo.

Quite right.

Get ready for the “I don’t have a theory that requires proof” and/or the “just asking questions” response.

 

[candycorn]

Mafia boss speaks.......................

Another video nobody will ever watch.

Why not just type out what you think happened on that day in some serious and reasonable detail?

 

[MacTheKnife]

Again you are being incoherent for the most part. I suggest if you try to travel less ground and be very careful with your language you might make some sense.

Opinion noted…and laughed at.

Again, you seem not to understand that the burden of proof of proof of Oswald's guilt is on the state which means since you are trying to defend their allegations the burden of proof is also on you.

Perhaps you should try to travel less ground….. "burden of proof of proof of Oswald’s” Too damn funny

You also need to understand in a court of law that your evidence must overcome any reasonable doubt in regards to guilt....thus when you cite some piece of evidence and then say this indicates whatever....but then the defense comes back and says no it could indicate this or could indicate that...then the jurors must decide what makes the most truth and if the defenses 'could haves' are possible then reasonable doubt will exist in the minds of the jurors.

Any reasonable person looking at the evidence would conclude Oswald was guilty. All of your “could haves” don’t mean a thing.

None of your evidence overcomes reasonable doubt. Not even to mention you interject your opinions into your statements like it is the absolute truth.

You have failed to make a case just as the Warren Commission did...and there is no doubt Oswald would have been found not guilty in a real court of law where his attorney would have been able to cross examine and expose the idiocy of the Warren commission's allegations.

Obviously you are not very intelligent and you lack good analytical skills not even to mention logic and just plain common sense and your dishonesty has also been noted as in when you attempt to twist and alter what others have said in Oswald's defense. and that is probably true of most of those who swallow the Warren Commission's theory and allegations.

Once again your efforts are quite pathetic.

Yet here you are trying to get someone, anyone, to believe in your “would haves” and “could haves”….it is the most pathetic thing around.

I think it's funny that they want to hold YOU to "burden of proof" when they offer no proof at all. I can't really see what's being said but the whole idea makes me laugh. The Warren Commission offers proof and MOST of the Warren Commission's proof is confirmed by House Select Committee on Assassinations. They have magazine articles and books which offer no proof at all...just rumor and innuendo.

Quite right.

Get ready for the “I don’t have a theory that requires proof” and/or the “just asking questions” response.

Not right at all....and anyone that does not know the burden of proof in a criminal case is always on the state knows nothing of the legal process.

and......................obviously.....since you are attempting to defend the state's accusation of guilt regarding Oswald then on this thread....the burden of proof is on you.

This has been pointed out more than once....yet you still seem not to get it. Well, that is no supprise really.


'In a criminal case, the burden of proof always rests with the government. This means that in order to convict someone of a crime, it is necessary that the government prove that the accused committed each and every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the government fails to prove just one element of the offense at trial, then a jury must find the defendant not guilty.'

https://federal-lawyer.com/what-is-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-criminal-case/

 

[MacTheKnife]

Mafia boss speaks.......................

Another video nobody will ever watch.

Why not just type out what you think happened on that day in some serious and reasonable detail?

That is a very popular video.

You see....I have my opinion and I have stated it but I do not expect anyone (myself included) should try and use their opinion to prove anything or as evidence of anything since my opinion or your opinion or anyones personal opinion is not evidence or proof of anything....it is just an opinion.

Yet you and your cohorts constantly state your opinions like it is some kind of evidence....more than ridiculous and you need to stop that if you want to have any credibility whatsoever.

 

[candycorn]

Again you are being incoherent for the most part. I suggest if you try to travel less ground and be very careful with your language you might make some sense.

Opinion noted…and laughed at.

Again, you seem not to understand that the burden of proof of proof of Oswald's guilt is on the state which means since you are trying to defend their allegations the burden of proof is also on you.

Perhaps you should try to travel less ground….. "burden of proof of proof of Oswald’s” Too damn funny

You also need to understand in a court of law that your evidence must overcome any reasonable doubt in regards to guilt....thus when you cite some piece of evidence and then say this indicates whatever....but then the defense comes back and says no it could indicate this or could indicate that...then the jurors must decide what makes the most truth and if the defenses 'could haves' are possible then reasonable doubt will exist in the minds of the jurors.

Any reasonable person looking at the evidence would conclude Oswald was guilty. All of your “could haves” don’t mean a thing.

None of your evidence overcomes reasonable doubt. Not even to mention you interject your opinions into your statements like it is the absolute truth.

You have failed to make a case just as the Warren Commission did...and there is no doubt Oswald would have been found not guilty in a real court of law where his attorney would have been able to cross examine and expose the idiocy of the Warren commission's allegations.

Obviously you are not very intelligent and you lack good analytical skills not even to mention logic and just plain common sense and your dishonesty has also been noted as in when you attempt to twist and alter what others have said in Oswald's defense. and that is probably true of most of those who swallow the Warren Commission's theory and allegations.

Once again your efforts are quite pathetic.

Yet here you are trying to get someone, anyone, to believe in your “would haves” and “could haves”….it is the most pathetic thing around.

I think it's funny that they want to hold YOU to "burden of proof" when they offer no proof at all. I can't really see what's being said but the whole idea makes me laugh. The Warren Commission offers proof and MOST of the Warren Commission's proof is confirmed by House Select Committee on Assassinations. They have magazine articles and books which offer no proof at all...just rumor and innuendo.

Quite right.

Get ready for the “I don’t have a theory that requires proof” and/or the “just asking questions” response.

Not right at all....and anyone that does not know the burden of proof in a criminal case is always on the state knows nothing of the legal process.

and......................obviously.....since you are attempting to defend the state's accusation of guilt regarding Oswald then on this thread....the burden of proof is on you.

This has been pointed out more than once....yet you still seem not to get it. Well, that is no supprise really.


'In a criminal case, the burden of proof always rests with the government. This means that in order to convict someone of a crime, it is necessary that the government prove that the accused committed each and every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the government fails to prove just one element of the offense at trial, then a jury must find the defendant not guilty.'

https://federal-lawyer.com/what-is-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-criminal-case/

Your client is dead; all available evidence points to his guilt.

 

[candycorn]

Mafia boss speaks.......................

Another video nobody will ever watch.

Why not just type out what you think happened on that day in some serious and reasonable detail?

That is a very popular video.

You see....I have my opinion and I have stated it but I do not expect anyone (myself included) to use their opinion to prove anything or as evidence of anything since my opinion or your opinion or anyones personal opinion is not evidence or proof of anything....it is just an opinion.

Yet you and your cohorts constantly state your opinions like it is some kind of evidence....more than ridiculous and you need to stop that if you want to have any credibility whatsoever.

See hunarcy ….I called it.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Again you are being incoherent for the most part. I suggest if you try to travel less ground and be very careful with your language you might make some sense.

Opinion noted…and laughed at.

Again, you seem not to understand that the burden of proof of proof of Oswald's guilt is on the state which means since you are trying to defend their allegations the burden of proof is also on you.

Perhaps you should try to travel less ground….. "burden of proof of proof of Oswald’s” Too damn funny

You also need to understand in a court of law that your evidence must overcome any reasonable doubt in regards to guilt....thus when you cite some piece of evidence and then say this indicates whatever....but then the defense comes back and says no it could indicate this or could indicate that...then the jurors must decide what makes the most truth and if the defenses 'could haves' are possible then reasonable doubt will exist in the minds of the jurors.

Any reasonable person looking at the evidence would conclude Oswald was guilty. All of your “could haves” don’t mean a thing.

None of your evidence overcomes reasonable doubt. Not even to mention you interject your opinions into your statements like it is the absolute truth.

You have failed to make a case just as the Warren Commission did...and there is no doubt Oswald would have been found not guilty in a real court of law where his attorney would have been able to cross examine and expose the idiocy of the Warren commission's allegations.

Obviously you are not very intelligent and you lack good analytical skills not even to mention logic and just plain common sense and your dishonesty has also been noted as in when you attempt to twist and alter what others have said in Oswald's defense. and that is probably true of most of those who swallow the Warren Commission's theory and allegations.

Once again your efforts are quite pathetic.

Yet here you are trying to get someone, anyone, to believe in your “would haves” and “could haves”….it is the most pathetic thing around.

I think it's funny that they want to hold YOU to "burden of proof" when they offer no proof at all. I can't really see what's being said but the whole idea makes me laugh. The Warren Commission offers proof and MOST of the Warren Commission's proof is confirmed by House Select Committee on Assassinations. They have magazine articles and books which offer no proof at all...just rumor and innuendo.

Quite right.

Get ready for the “I don’t have a theory that requires proof” and/or the “just asking questions” response.

Not right at all....and anyone that does not know the burden of proof in a criminal case is always on the state knows nothing of the legal process.

and......................obviously.....since you are attempting to defend the state's accusation of guilt regarding Oswald then on this thread....the burden of proof is on you.

This has been pointed out more than once....yet you still seem not to get it. Well, that is no supprise really.


'In a criminal case, the burden of proof always rests with the government. This means that in order to convict someone of a crime, it is necessary that the government prove that the accused committed each and every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the government fails to prove just one element of the offense at trial, then a jury must find the defendant not guilty.'

https://federal-lawyer.com/what-is-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-criminal-case/

Your client is dead; all available evidence points to his guilt.

Again....that is your 'opinion'.

If you want to appear credible when you say stuff like that you should clarify it---as in ....that is just my opinion.

 

[candycorn]

Opinion noted…and laughed at.

Perhaps you should try to travel less ground….. "burden of proof of proof of Oswald’s” Too damn funny

Any reasonable person looking at the evidence would conclude Oswald was guilty. All of your “could haves” don’t mean a thing.

Yet here you are trying to get someone, anyone, to believe in your “would haves” and “could haves”….it is the most pathetic thing around.

I think it's funny that they want to hold YOU to "burden of proof" when they offer no proof at all. I can't really see what's being said but the whole idea makes me laugh. The Warren Commission offers proof and MOST of the Warren Commission's proof is confirmed by House Select Committee on Assassinations. They have magazine articles and books which offer no proof at all...just rumor and innuendo.

Quite right.

Get ready for the “I don’t have a theory that requires proof” and/or the “just asking questions” response.

Not right at all....and anyone that does not know the burden of proof in a criminal case is always on the state knows nothing of the legal process.

and......................obviously.....since you are attempting to defend the state's accusation of guilt regarding Oswald then on this thread....the burden of proof is on you.

This has been pointed out more than once....yet you still seem not to get it. Well, that is no supprise really.


'In a criminal case, the burden of proof always rests with the government. This means that in order to convict someone of a crime, it is necessary that the government prove that the accused committed each and every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the government fails to prove just one element of the offense at trial, then a jury must find the defendant not guilty.'

https://federal-lawyer.com/what-is-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-criminal-case/

Your client is dead; all available evidence points to his guilt.

Again....that is your 'opinion'.

If you want to appear credible when you say stuff like that you should add....that is just my opinion.

The reason kids are taught that LHO killed Kennedy is because the evidence supports that conclusion; and no other conclusion.

That he is dead isn’t my opinion.

 

[MacTheKnife]

I think it's funny that they want to hold YOU to "burden of proof" when they offer no proof at all. I can't really see what's being said but the whole idea makes me laugh. The Warren Commission offers proof and MOST of the Warren Commission's proof is confirmed by House Select Committee on Assassinations. They have magazine articles and books which offer no proof at all...just rumor and innuendo.

Quite right.

Get ready for the “I don’t have a theory that requires proof” and/or the “just asking questions” response.

Not right at all....and anyone that does not know the burden of proof in a criminal case is always on the state knows nothing of the legal process.

and......................obviously.....since you are attempting to defend the state's accusation of guilt regarding Oswald then on this thread....the burden of proof is on you.

This has been pointed out more than once....yet you still seem not to get it. Well, that is no supprise really.


'In a criminal case, the burden of proof always rests with the government. This means that in order to convict someone of a crime, it is necessary that the government prove that the accused committed each and every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the government fails to prove just one element of the offense at trial, then a jury must find the defendant not guilty.'

https://federal-lawyer.com/what-is-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-criminal-case/

Your client is dead; all available evidence points to his guilt.

Again....that is your 'opinion'.

If you want to appear credible when you say stuff like that you should add....that is just my opinion.

The reason kids are taught that LHO killed Kennedy is because the evidence supports that conclusion; and no other conclusion.

That he is dead isn’t my opinion.

But when you add....the evidence supports the theory that oswald was the killer.....that is your opinion. Many people have that opinion but many more people have a opposite opinion.

One of the most stupid statements I have seen on this thread...like what kids are taught is some sort of evidence.

What absolutely amazing nonsense and stupidity you present.

'Opinion evidence refers to evidence of what the witness thinks, believes, or infers in regard to facts, as distinguished from personal knowledge of the facts themselves. In common law jurisdictions the general rule is that a witness is supposed to testify as to what was observed and not to give an opinion on what was observed.'

Why do I have to explain everything to you over and over....still you seem not to get it.....are you that stupid or do you just appear not to understand it as in it would harm your agenda of trying to prove Oswald was the killer?

 

[candycorn]

Quite right.

Get ready for the “I don’t have a theory that requires proof” and/or the “just asking questions” response.

Not right at all....and anyone that does not know the burden of proof in a criminal case is always on the state knows nothing of the legal process.

and......................obviously.....since you are attempting to defend the state's accusation of guilt regarding Oswald then on this thread....the burden of proof is on you.

This has been pointed out more than once....yet you still seem not to get it. Well, that is no supprise really.


'In a criminal case, the burden of proof always rests with the government. This means that in order to convict someone of a crime, it is necessary that the government prove that the accused committed each and every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the government fails to prove just one element of the offense at trial, then a jury must find the defendant not guilty.'

https://federal-lawyer.com/what-is-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-criminal-case/

Your client is dead; all available evidence points to his guilt.

Again....that is your 'opinion'.

If you want to appear credible when you say stuff like that you should add....that is just my opinion.

The reason kids are taught that LHO killed Kennedy is because the evidence supports that conclusion; and no other conclusion.

That he is dead isn’t my opinion.

But when you add....the evidence supports the theory that oswald was the killer.....that is your opinion. Many people have that opinion and many people have a opposite opinion.

Nope.
Oswald’s rifle shot Kennedy
It was found in the place Oswald worked
Oswald brought it to work that morning

Only a fool would think Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Not right at all....and anyone that does not know the burden of proof in a criminal case is always on the state knows nothing of the legal process.

and......................obviously.....since you are attempting to defend the state's accusation of guilt regarding Oswald then on this thread....the burden of proof is on you.

This has been pointed out more than once....yet you still seem not to get it. Well, that is no supprise really.


'In a criminal case, the burden of proof always rests with the government. This means that in order to convict someone of a crime, it is necessary that the government prove that the accused committed each and every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the government fails to prove just one element of the offense at trial, then a jury must find the defendant not guilty.'

https://federal-lawyer.com/what-is-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-criminal-case/

Your client is dead; all available evidence points to his guilt.

Again....that is your 'opinion'.

If you want to appear credible when you say stuff like that you should add....that is just my opinion.

The reason kids are taught that LHO killed Kennedy is because the evidence supports that conclusion; and no other conclusion.

That he is dead isn’t my opinion.

But when you add....the evidence supports the theory that oswald was the killer.....that is your opinion. Many people have that opinion and many people have a opposite opinion.

Nope.
Oswald’s rifle shot Kennedy
It was found in the place Oswald worked
Oswald brought it to work that morning

Only a fool would think Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy.

You are the fool my dear....all your ridiculous statements prove that.

You keep repeating your opinions like you think if you keep repeating them.....someone might believe them bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa pretty similar to the WC....no wonder the American people rejected it.

I notice that you ignore my challenge of a mock trial....where we could in a rational manner deal with the WC report in a logical manner.

 

[candycorn]

Your client is dead; all available evidence points to his guilt.

Again....that is your 'opinion'.

If you want to appear credible when you say stuff like that you should add....that is just my opinion.

The reason kids are taught that LHO killed Kennedy is because the evidence supports that conclusion; and no other conclusion.

That he is dead isn’t my opinion.

But when you add....the evidence supports the theory that oswald was the killer.....that is your opinion. Many people have that opinion and many people have a opposite opinion.

Nope.
Oswald’s rifle shot Kennedy
It was found in the place Oswald worked
Oswald brought it to work that morning

Only a fool would think Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy.

You are the fool my dear....all your ridiculous statements prove that.

You keep repeating your opinions like you think if you keep repeating them.....someone might believe them bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa pretty similar to the WC....no wonder the American people rejected it.

I notice that you ignore my challenge of a mock trial....where we could in a rational manner deal with the WC report in a logical manner.

Is there anything that would come out in a trial here that would change your mind one degree? Yes or no.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Nope.
Oswald’s rifle shot Kennedy
It was found in the place Oswald worked
Oswald brought it to work that morning

Only a fool would think Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy.

We know for a fact that the head shot that truly killed the president in a coup came from in front of the limousine and to the side. Where do you think Lee Oswald was again when all this went down?
JFK MURDER SOLVED - Reward
Read the link unless you like staying dumb and a sucker which it's entirely possible you do.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Again....that is your 'opinion'.

If you want to appear credible when you say stuff like that you should add....that is just my opinion.

The reason kids are taught that LHO killed Kennedy is because the evidence supports that conclusion; and no other conclusion.

That he is dead isn’t my opinion.

But when you add....the evidence supports the theory that oswald was the killer.....that is your opinion. Many people have that opinion and many people have a opposite opinion.

Nope.
Oswald’s rifle shot Kennedy
It was found in the place Oswald worked
Oswald brought it to work that morning

Only a fool would think Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy.

You are the fool my dear....all your ridiculous statements prove that.

You keep repeating your opinions like you think if you keep repeating them.....someone might believe them bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa pretty similar to the WC....no wonder the American people rejected it.

I notice that you ignore my challenge of a mock trial....where we could in a rational manner deal with the WC report in a logical manner.

Is there anything that would come out in a trial here that would change your mind one degree? Yes or no.

I doubt it but our goal should not to be to convince each other of anything . Our goal should be to............ in a rational and logical manner, present the evidence and the rebuttal of the evidence....which was not allowed by the Warren Commission as in...Oswald had no represenative on the commision to challenge their allegations.