Did LHO know how to drive? Does it matter?

[Bill Brown]

Yes, true statements that you are unable to dispute are so "kooky", aren't they?

It's not about the level of truthfulness of your statements.  It's about the spin you put on that truth.

[John Iacoletti]

Faith-based? And we all know you're an experienced argument whore when dealing with the faith-based, right?

If you think faith is a good way to determine what is true or not, then please explain why.  Or namecalling for that matter.

[Bill Brown]

Then do you agree that regardless of whether or not Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater, it does not affect his guilt (or lack of guilt) in Tippit's murder?

Yes.  But it may have made whatever evidence they claimed to have gathered at that time to be inadmissible had it gone to trial.

Yes.

Then you're doing nothing more than grandstanding when you argue that Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater.

One could say that grandstanding is more important to you than the truth.

[John Iacoletti]

It's not about the level of truthfulness of your statements.  It's about the spin you put on that truth.

There's no spin in any of my statements that you just quoted.  They are just facts.  You want to talk about spin?  How about "Brennan saw the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived".  Such hypocrisy.

[John Iacoletti]

Then you're doing nothing more than grandstanding when you argue that Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater.

No, when somebody makes the false claim that the cops should have detained Oswald without probable cause, then that misinformation should be corrected.  You don't have a problem with correcting misinformation do you Bill?

One could say that grandstanding is more important to you than the truth.

One could say that wordplay and diversion is more important to you than the truth.  If you think you can prove that Oswald shot JFK without injecting a mountain of spin, then by all means do so.

[Bill Brown]

There's no spin in any of my statements that you just quoted.  They are just facts.  You want to talk about spin?  How about "Brennan saw the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived".  Such hypocrisy.

There's no spin in any of my statements that you just quoted.  They are just facts.

Facts, yes.  But their value isn't what you imply.

You want to talk about spin?  How about "Brennan saw the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived".

Brennan did indeed see the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived.  This has been explained to you.

Before the motorcade arrived, Brennan saw a man up in the window.  After the shooting, Brennan saw that same man with the rifle.  Therefore, Brennan saw the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived.

Perhaps you should learn the difference between that fact .... and a false claim that Brennan saw the rifle before the motorcade arrived.

[Steve Logan]

If you think faith is a good way to determine what is true or not, then please explain why.  Or namecalling for that matter.

You're the one that brought up faith-based not me. In my experienced professional opinion it's you and others that cannot show how Oswald's rights were violated in that theater. No matter if 15 or 50 law enforcement officers showed in response to a call from dispatch that the suspect is in the theater. What suspect you may ask? The armed one that killed the cop. The number one right that was present in that theater was the right of the cop to protect himself against an armed suspect.

[Bill Brown]

No, when somebody makes the false claim that the cops should have detained Oswald without probable cause, then that misinformation should be corrected.  You don't have a problem with correcting misinformation do you Bill?

You've agreed that Oswald could still be guilty for Tippit's death even if his rights were violated while inside the theater.  That's good enough for me.