Common Ground?

[Matt Grantham]

 I always thought it was a legitimate to question to ask ' what happened to the bullet if it entered through the front of JFK's throat?'

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Is there any ?common ground? items that both sides of the controversy can agree upon?

If JFK was alive today he would have been kicked out of the Democrat Party for being too conservative.

[Richard Smith]

Ironically, the only thing that we appear to agree on was technically still not settled. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and death sentence and ordered a new trial. Ruby?s death from cancer intervened. So technically, Jack Ruby died an innocent man.

You must have a peculiar interpretation of innocence.  By that standard Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and John Wilkes Booth were are innocent if by that you mean they died before being convicted in a criminal trial. That is absurd.  A criminal trial is not like the hand of God deciding if someone committed an act or not.  Even a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the defendant is innocent.  Do you think there is any doubt that Ruby shot Oswald or that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln simply because they died before they could be convicted?  Oswald killed JFK.  The fact that he died before he was convicted in a court doesn't negate the evidence that he was the assassin by even one iota.

[Jerry Freeman]

You must have a peculiar interpretation of innocence.  By that standard Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and John Wilkes Booth were are innocent if by that you mean they died before being convicted in a criminal trial. That is absurd.  A criminal trial is not like the hand of God deciding if someone committed an act or not.  Even a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the defendant is innocent.  Do you think there is any doubt that Ruby shot Oswald or that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln simply because they died before they could be convicted?  Oswald killed JFK.  The fact that he died before he was convicted in a court doesn't negate the evidence that he was the assassin by even one iota.

Well there you have it ladies and gentlemen. No need for trials anymore. No need for juries..send them home. Just let Agent Smith do a glance-through look at everybody's charges and let him decide who swings. Let's shut down the forum...Why go on any further?
BTW...Who was Jack the Ripper really?

[Jerry Freeman]

Which begs the statement...JTR was never apprehended...His widow, companions, and audience saw JWB shoot Lincoln, and the whole world witnessed Hitler attacking civilians but no one ever saw LHO shoot JFK....or did ARS?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

You must have a peculiar interpretation of innocence.  By that standard Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and John Wilkes Booth were are innocent if by that you mean they died before being convicted in a criminal trial. That is absurd.  A criminal trial is not like the hand of God deciding if someone committed an act or not.  Even a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the defendant is innocent.  Do you think there is any doubt that Ruby shot Oswald or that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln simply because they died before they could be convicted?  Oswald killed JFK.  The fact that he died before he was convicted in a court doesn't negate the evidence that he was the assassin by even one iota.

So when Lincoln was assassinated they had the Chase Commission? Did Lincoln's VP Johnson ask Chief Justice Chase to head a commission? How did that work?

[Richard Smith]

Well there you have it ladies and gentlemen. No need for trials anymore. No need for juries..send them home. Just let Agent Smith do a glance-through look at everybody's charges and let him decide who swings. Let's shut down the forum...Why go on any further?
BTW...Who was Jack the Ripper really?

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. 

[Ray Mitcham]

Quote by Richard Smith
"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."

Apples and oranges, Richard. We don't know that Oswald killed JFK, so the same principle doesn't go.