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

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

What it your source for this quote?
>>> Huh? You post here as if this was a court of law, yet don't know that basic tenet?
Look it up, 'researcher'.
 
Oswald was the one 'tainted in some way'
He might as well have worn tshirt a saying 'Just Did It'

Everything is arguable to a guy openly demonstrating his contrarianism by using devil's horns on his portrait.

It's the CT Ship of Fools that has the 'boatload full of speculation and conjecture'.

You know if the SS would have done their job protecting the President from assassination there would not have been an assassination, so they failed and that means they did not do their job. It also was not their job to take the murdered body of the President out of the State of Texas. Those are facts that justify the speculative theory you are 100% sure probably might have happened or you think perhaps maybe sometimes but maybe never happened

[John Iacoletti]

Why? You're the one using the drawing. And JerryO is the guy who did the drawing if I remember correctly... and am I wrong in recalling you explaining DevAd connection with the horns?

Yes, you are wrong.  Your recollections usually are.

[John Iacoletti]

Here, let me demonstrate the word 'believe' in a sentence:

"I believe you've weaponized the word both here and on TAE"

 

What "weapon"?  You either have reasons for the things you believe or you don't.  If you have any reasons for your "100% sure that Oswald probably did it" belief, you've never actually articulated any of them on this forum.

[John Iacoletti]

What it your source for this quote?
>>> Huh? You post here as if this was a court of law, yet don't know that basic tenet?
Look it up, 'researcher'.

Why so evasive as to the source of your quote?
 

Oswald was the one 'tainted in some way'
He might as well have worn a tshirt saying 'Just Did It'

I suppose you consider this "evidence" too...

Everything is arguable to a guy openly demonstrating his contrarianism by using devil's horns on his portrait.

You sure like to assume things, don't you?  Because of course you do.

What passes for "evidence" in this case is questionable, impeachable, arguable, or tainted in some way because it just is.  The specifics have been discussed at length by people who unlike you actually understand the evidence beyond faulty "recollections" of something they heard somewhere.

It's the CT Ship of Fools that has the 'boatload full of speculation and conjecture'.

Feel free to name a specific example of me basing a truth claim on speculation and conjecture.

[Richard Smith]

I have no idea what you are talking about

Yeah right, of course you don't….

And btw....

So once again you won't clear up whether you posted as Roger Collins.  You obviously would know the answer.  It is truly mystifying that you won't just say yes or no.  The only reason that I can surmise for your reluctance is that Collins claimed to be a lawyer.  And you lied about that as demonstrated in your complete lack of knowledge regarding the legal system. 

[Bill Chapman]

Yes, you are wrong.  Your recollections usually are.

You denied calling us 'lemmings'
I caught you out. Remember?

Oswald: 'My Prince, this Iacoletti guy, who has been instrumental in keeping my dream of being remembered for the next 10,000 years alive, is now promoting himself as your advocate'
Satan: 'Nah, he worships me. Even TAE kicked him out. He just sat there looking grumpy and even wore a Tshirt emblazoned with his own name, for Christ's sake.'
Oswald: [SMIRK]

[Bill Chapman]

What "weapon"?  You either have reasons for the things you believe or you don't.  If you have any reasons for your "100% sure that Oswald probably did it" belief, you've never actually articulated any of them on this forum.

'weapon' lol

>>> 'Weaponize'

Get in tune with modern-day lingo FFS

[Martin Weidmann]

So once again you won't clear up whether you posted as Roger Collins.  You obviously would know the answer.  It is truly mystifying that you won't just say yes or no.  The only reason that I can surmise for your reluctance is that Collins claimed to be a lawyer.  And you lied about that as demonstrated in your complete lack of knowledge regarding the legal system.

More BS from the king of BS....

As I stated previously,

No, I can't clear it up. This idiotic claim has surfaced several times in the past and it doesn't matter what I say, there will always be clowns like you who don't accept what I say and bring it up again. There is no need for me to defend myself or to do what you want me to do and so I won't. You just keep on living in your fantasy world, but I won't respond anymore to this nonsense.

Your question has been answered. You just don't like the answer. As it was pretty obvious to me that you would keep on pushing this false narrative regardless of what I say, I decided some time ago to have some fun and toy with you and…………. it worked by laying bare the obsession you have with Roger Collins. 

I wonder what it must be like having a former poster on your mind all the time, but it can't be pretty. My honest advice to you; get over it and get a life.

your complete lack of knowledge regarding the legal system.

Care to explain what qualifications you have to make such a determination, mr. Armchair Lawyer? You don't even know the difference between an attorney and a lawyer.

Btw, you didn't have a clue how to answer my question about the Clay Shaw trial, so when Denis offered a plausible, yet not actually correct, answer you just blindly jumped on his bandwagon! That's some legal expertise you have there! 


Oh, just one more thing; how could I possibly lie about something that (according to you) Roger Collins claimed in the past?