Why didn't the Conspirators plant Eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza?

[John Iacoletti]

At a minimum, Marina, gun dealers, individual members of the FBI, post office, and DPD, would all have to be convinced to lie about this evidence.

Strawman. Marina didn't link Oswald to that particular rifle.  Gun dealers didn't link Oswald to that particular rifle.  Individual members of the FBI didn't link Oswald to that rifle.  Etc.

[Royell Storing]

         Planting phony Eyewitnesses increases the number of Loose Ends that are eventually going to have to be eliminated. As it is they had their hands full confusing/intimidating/silencing legitimate eyewitnesses to the assassination and the Frame/Cover Up after the fact.

[John Iacoletti]

The new "standard": DNA, HD media of "alleged" criminal act and time-travel.

says every prosecutor who doesn't have very good evidence.

[Bill Chapman]

"I'm automatically right until somebody proves me wrong".

 

There you go again with your 'IOW' sermon

I don't ask anyone to prove me wrong. I have the same 'ask' as I put on myself: Name the shooter you think most likely to have assassinated Kennedy.

[Bill Chapman]

I think you mean your strawman list never ends.  Unless, you can actually cite me "alluding to each piece of evidence as being forged, planted, invented or intentionally incorrectly analysed, eyewitnesses as being incompetent, FBI being crooked, Dallas Police as being liars, Doctors lying, fake photographs".

Not holding my breath.

I'm sure there really was a wedding ring in a cup.  I'm just wondering how that is evidence of murder.

It's a clue to Oswald's state of mind, innocent or not. But pretty sure Dirty Harvey didn't exactly live his life in PleasantVille USA, as you characters attempt to portray.

[Dillon Rankine]

The new "standard": DNA, HD media of "alleged" criminal act and time-travel.

My comment was more general. The criminal justice system permits illiterate jurors to deliberate on the basics to complicated forensic matters. It privileges fallacious arguments over scientific reasoning. Judges themselves make decisions more on how much energy they have?the biggest predictor of a parole decision was how close a hearing is to lunchtime. It puts import on witnesses despite their flaws. The punishment thing never works and serves only to activate the neural reward system of the punishers. It?s persistent belief in free will.

There?s barely a positive to list.

[Steve Logan]

My comment was more general. The criminal justice system permits illiterate jurors to deliberate on the basics to complicated forensic matters. It privileges fallacious arguments over scientific reasoning. Judges themselves make decisions more on how much energy they have?the biggest predictor of a parole decision was how close a hearing is to lunchtime. It puts import on witnesses despite their flaws. The punishment thing never works and serves only to activate the neural reward system of the punishers. It?s persistent belief in free will.

There?s barely a positive to list.

Give me an f'n break.

[Dillon Rankine]

"It privileges fallacious arguments over scientific reasoning."

One can argue DNA away? Well, I suppose the chain-of-custody, potential forcontamination and bias of the lab facility and workers could be up for debate.

But generally, DNA is something that prevails and that juries understand.

Your alternative legal system would effectively do away with circumstantial evidence, sideline witness accounts, and ultimately empty the jails.

I don?t know what the solution is, but it?s current state is incompatible with reality. We could debate the merit of of having panels of qualified forensic scientists examining every murder case, or whatever, and I think witness accounts should be corroboratory unless absolutely necessary. Emptying jails or removing circumstantial evidence aren?t things I see happening under any alternative based on reality.