That's not a negative. You claimed that I implied Oswald was innocent. When?
So if I don't claim to know he's guilty, then I'm "implying" he's innocent. Is that how your brain works? You can either prove he's guilty or not.
Yeah I was wrong, your posts don't imply Oswald was innocent they scream from the top of their lungs that Oswald was innocent.
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
John GalsworthySo if I don't claim to know he's guilty, then I'm "implying" he's innocent.
Of course, when you go to the lengths of separating evidence into two parts just so you can present what you perceive to be less incriminating evidence to the court is a stunt only a naive Defence Attorney would try and pull off.
Is that how your brain works?
My brain works!
You can either prove he's guilty or not.
Both the Warren Commission and a decade and a half later the HSCA studied the evidence and concluded that Oswald was guilty, whereas you and the rest of the CT's haven't concluded squat. A jury can only decide a case with evidence and the Magic Unknown Boogeyman who was everywhere but nowhere is simply laughable.
JohnM