Oswald is the real assassin

[Bill Chapman]

Why? The facts on an event stand or fall on their own and not whether "X" percent of people believe them. Would you change your view on the assassination based on a poll?

Surely you know that history shows that vast numbers of people, the overwhelming majority in many cases, have believed in things that simply were not true.

Take the Trump base, for instance

[Colin Crow]

Why? The facts on an event stand or fall on their own and not whether "X" percent of people believe them. Would you change your view on the assassination based on a poll?

Surely you know that history shows that vast numbers of people, the overwhelming majority in many cases, have believed in things that simply were not true.

My answer is self evident. Your original premise calls for a 99:1 ratio, ergo the chances for anyone must be strongly in favour of one group over another......doh.....just stating the bleeding obvious.

56 years and the numbers are pretty much what they were. That’s a fact. Can you provide an example where "vast numbers of people, the overwhelming majority in many cases, have believed in things that simply were not true."?

[Thomas Halle]

John...I dunno about his statements being "subjective," but virtually ALL of them are untrue...but merely reflect the (EXTREMELY FLAWED) Official Narrative. The evidence that the M-C carbine was Oswald's is extremely tenuous. E.g., initially NO PRINTS were found on the weapon (Oswald's or ANYONE'S), Maria's testimony reflected a denial that her husband owned a rifle (and only changed later...apparently after being brow-beaten by fed. agents, who reminded her that her staying in the USA might well be dependent upon her testimony). Incidentally, the Warren Commission legal staff noted that Maria's testimony changed dramatically from time to time, and was NOT reliable! This guy insists that LHO said nothing about being elsewhere than on the sixth floor...an absolute untruth, as Oswald said that he'd been on the first floor (and witnesses corroborated this). The shells found near the shooting of the police officer DID NOT match Oswald's revolver, but were from two diff. handguns. It is patently clear that this guy...along with most "Lone Nutter" nuts, I'm sorry to say-- is "coming from" ("a priori") dogma, not from disinterested analysis of the evidence.

BOTTOM LINE, in American criminal jurisprudence, a suspect is considered innocent, unless proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." The evidence against suspect Oswald was ANYTHING BUT compelling and did NOT meet the usual standard. Effectively, Oswald (post mortem) was subjected to "Star Chamber" justice by the Warren Commission. From Dallas to Washington, LHO was the "fall-guy," and he was very quickly dispatched (murdered) (thus avoiding the very inconvenient possibility of his receiving legal counsel, and MAYBE (half-way) legitimate treatment in court. This MUST NOT be allowed to occur, regardless of whatever else developed. QED.

My best to all here. ; )

[Jerry Organ]

John...I dunno about his statements being "subjective," but virtually ALL of them are untrue...but merely reflect the (EXTREMELY FLAWED) Official Narrative. The evidence that the M-C carbine was Oswald's is extremely tenuous. E.g., initially NO PRINTS were found on the weapon (Oswald's or ANYONE'S), Maria's testimony reflected a denial that her husband owned a rifle (and only changed later...apparently after being brow-beaten by fed. agents, who reminded her that her staying in the USA might well be dependent upon her testimony). Incidentally, the Warren Commission legal staff noted that Maria's testimony changed dramatically from time to time, and was NOT reliable! This guy insists that LHO said nothing about being elsewhere than on the sixth floor...an absolute untruth, as Oswald said that he'd been on the first floor (and witnesses corroborated this). The shells found near the shooting of the police officer DID NOT match Oswald's revolver, but were from two diff. handguns. It is patently clear that this guy...along with most "Lone Nutter" nuts, I'm sorry to say-- is "coming from" ("a priori") dogma, not from disinterested analysis of the evidence.

BOTTOM LINE, in American criminal jurisprudence, a suspect is considered innocent, unless proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." The evidence against suspect Oswald was ANYTHING BUT compelling and did NOT meet the usual standard. Effectively, Oswald (post mortem) was subjected to "Star Chamber" justice by the Warren Commission. From Dallas to Washington, LHO was the "fall-guy," and he was very quickly dispatched (murdered) (thus avoiding the very inconvenient possibility of his receiving legal counsel, and MAYBE (half-way) legitimate treatment in court. This MUST NOT be allowed to occur, regardless of whatever else developed. QED.

My best to all here. ; )

From the Legal Dictionary for "beyond a reasonable doubt": ( Link )

     The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a
     criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived
     from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby
     overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Note "no other logical explanation" meaning alternative theories (in our case, JFK conspiracy theories) must be weighed and subjected to an equal amount of scrutiny as the prosecution case. When a defense attorney submits to the court a theory that exonerates his client and implicates a new suspect, it is expected that he had better have some proof of that, otherwise the judge may not allow it or a jury may dismiss it.

     the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence
     or proof by clear and convincing evidence.

Plenty of preponderance of actual legitimate evidence in the Warren Report and books like "Case Closed", "JFK First Day Evidence" and "Reclaiming Evidence." Also it's not necessary to dispel all doubt, and it is expected that a jury be comprised of reasonable people, not people like JFK conspiracy loons, who are beyond convincing.

[John Iacoletti]

That's just fractally wrong.  The defense does not have to prove some alternate theory.  The defense has no burden whatsoever.

Here's the problem:  The "Oswald did it" explanation cannot be derived from the facts.  It is solely derived from assumptions and conjectures made from the facts.  Big difference.

And no, preponderance is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, and is not sufficient in a criminal trial.

Calling people who don't accept handwaving and conjecture "loons" doesn't actually advance your argument.

[Thomas Graves]

     If all that were true, why do you need the word kooky?  Are you sure you spelled that correctly?   What's self-appointed about wanting to know?  Didn't you say most people don't care and what they believe isn't relevant anyways?  What is relevant?  The badge they wear?  The authority invested in them?  I'm very confused by your process, your mission, your words, your determination to drain enthusiasm for the research community, the case closed nostrum that routinely, not saying you, derides love of Kennedy.  How could you possibly miss the shoddy evidence management, even if you insist on denying it was tampering?  It seems to me contempt.  Did your grand uncle clean the limo?  Is this personal?

Have either of you considered the possibility that the (apparently Oswald-blaming) evidence appears to have been handled shoddily and/or tampered with because ... well ... it was handled shoddily, and because J. Edgar Hoover (no lover of JFK and RFK, btw) ordered it to be spun/tampered with in order to help him "save face" (for not having monitored Oswald more closely) and to obviate the need for the U.S. to invade USSR-backed Cuba and / or nuke the Kremlin?

-- MWT 

[Bill Chapman]

That's just fractally wrong.  The defense does not have to prove some alternate theory.  The defense has no burden whatsoever.

Here's the problem:  The "Oswald did it" explanation cannot be derived from the facts.  It is solely derived from assumptions and conjectures made from the facts.  Big difference.

And no, preponderance is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, and is not sufficient in a criminal trial.

Calling people who don't accept handwaving and conjecture "loons" doesn't actually advance your argument.

'Fractually' and factually.

And WTF do trials have to do with the truth, anyway. Trials are about who wins the argument.

[Thomas Graves]

The "Oswald did it" explanation cannot be derived from the facts.  It is solely derived from assumptions and conjectures made from the facts.  Big difference.

Iacoletti,

How many undeniable facts are you aware of in the case?

That the three gals near the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder film are, "uh ... probably Carol Reed, definitely Gloria Calvery, and definitely me, Karen Westbrook!"?

Anything else?

LOL

-- MWT