CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[Richard Smith]

Obviously Oswald would hire Roger Collins and a contrarian to assist in his defense.  They would have snappy rebukes to the evidence like "strawman," "you made that up," and "Oswald's rifle? LOL."  Oswald would then fry faster than one of the Colonel's chickens.  His only hope would be a hung jury in which half the jurors wanted to execute him and the other half would want to execute his defense team.

[John Iacoletti]

Obviously Oswald would hire Roger Collins and a contrarian to assist in his defense.  They would have snappy rebukes to the evidence like "strawman," "you made that up," and "Oswald's rifle? LOL."  Oswald would then fry faster than one of the Colonel's chickens.  His only hope would be a hung jury in which half the jurors wanted to execute him and the other half would want to execute his defense team.

There's a compelling case.  Just make a bunch of false claims, insist you're right and claim victory.

In the "Richard Smith" lexicon, "contrarian" is defined as someone who points out that his false claims are false.

[Bill Chapman]

This is a common complaint from people who think that several things that don't prove Oswald killed JFK somehow combine to prove that Oswald killed JFK.

  Who thinks that? 

[John Iacoletti]

Who thinks that?

The guy who thinks it's a problem to analyze the veracity of each item of purported evidence.

[Bill Chapman]

There's a compelling case.  Just make a bunch of false claims, insist you're right and claim victory.

In the "Richard Smith" lexicon, "contrarian" is defined as someone who points out that his false claims are false.

Since when does a (self-appointed) 'Devil's Advocate' qualify as an arbiter of what is true and what is false?

[Bill Chapman]

The guy who thinks it's a problem to analyze the veracity of each item of purported evidence.

Point out where I claim that

[Bill Chapman]

Actually, you're the one claiming OswaldProbablyDidIt, but are unable to articulate any reason for believing that.

It's got nothing to do with belief

[Martin Weidmann]

Since when does a (self-appointed) 'Devil's Advocate' qualify as an arbiter of what is true and what is false?

The answer would be anybody who looks honestly at the evidence and finds that it does not support the bogus claims made by guys like Richard Smith.

I asked Richard Smith several times in the recent past what qualifications he had to make certain determinations. Never got a reply of course, but then I never really expected one.

But I did not see you asking Richard a similar question. You probably just missed those conversations, right?