Only 1.87% Of The WC's Questions Were Probative...No Interest In The Truth

[Brian Walker]

The OP was supported in the OP. Did you bother to read it? Walker's question was shifting the burden.

Over 109,000 questions were asked so your spin won't work. The WC asked way more not vital and leading/hearsay questions. If you are comfortable with their work then we see who would be more comfortable living in Nazi Germany.

Sometimes I think you are just joking. You are the one who tried to make the point that 1.87% of questions being probative is a sign that the WC was not looking for the truth. The first thing you would have to do is point out that 1.87 is low for a trial or deposition to even make the point.  Unless you want to make the case that 1.87 is not low and that no trials or depositions are designed to read the truth.

The number of non probative questions is totally irrelevant here. The only important number is the 5000 probative questions. If you don't think 5000 is enough than could you at least tell us how many should have been asked? You have to know that answer to know that 5000 is not enough.

[Rob Caprio]

Can't be done. Again, the WC relied on the FBI which relied on the DPD which relied on bogus circumstantial evidence.
 There was no counsel for the 'defendant' therefore no cross examination/ objection to leading witnesses/ calling for conclusions/ and so on...a kangaroo court with not even kangaroos to have to deal with.

True.

[Rob Caprio]

Sometimes I think you are just joking. You are the one who tried to make the point that 1.87% of questions being probative is a sign that the WC was not looking for the truth. The first thing you would have to do is point out that 1.87 is low for a trial or deposition to even make the point.  Unless you want to make the case that 1.87 is not low and that no trials or depositions are designed to read the truth.

The number of non probative questions is totally irrelevant here. The only important number is the 5000 probative questions. If you don't think 5000 is enough than could you at least tell us how many should have been asked? You have to know that answer to know that 5000 is not enough.

I don't have to do anything. If you think asking less that 2 percent of 109,000 plus questions in a probative manner is normal and proper for finding the truth then that explains why you accept the official fairytale.

Enough said.

[Rob Caprio]

Here is something to consider from real judges.

Quote on

The Warren Report? All three judges in the case [Clay Shaw] agreed that it was inadmissible as evidence in judicial proceedings.

"If we are going to accept the Warren Report as factual, then we have wasted a week of time", Judge Bagert declared near the end of the hearing.

Another judge, Matthew S. Braniff, said of the Warren Report: "It is fraught with hearsay and contradictions."

"And that's putting it mildly," Bagert commented.

A few days later, Judge Edward A. Haggerty Jr., who had been appointed to preside at the trial of Clay Shaw, also said the Warren Report could not be admitted as evidence at the trial.

(Excerpted from "The Garrison Inquiry" by Joachim Joesten, 1967, p. 70)

Quote off

[Brian Walker]

I don't have to do anything. If you think asking less that 2 percent of 109,000 plus questions in a probative manner is normal and proper for finding the truth then that explains why you accept the official fairytale.

Enough said.

I guess Rob is never going to understand that the number 5000 is the only number that matters. Rob doesn't know if 1.87 percent is normal for a trial or a deposition or not.  Even if he was correct and the 1.87 is low it still doesn't mean anything at all because it could just  show that 5000 was enough probative questions but they asked more than normal of other types of questions because they were trying to cover all the bases.

[Rob Caprio]

I guess Rob is never going to understand that the number 5000 is the only number that matters. Rob doesn't know if 1.87 percent is normal for a trial or a deposition or not.  Even if he was correct and the 1.87 is low it still doesn't mean anything at all because it could just  show that 5000 was enough probative questions but they asked more than normal of other types of questions because they were trying to cover all the bases.

Still can't show that less than 2% of questions asked being probative is normal, huh? Anyone not drinking the WC koolade would find this number pitifully low when compared to the amount of LEADING and HEARSAY questions asked.

The onus is on you.