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

[Martin Weidmann]

The corroborated evidence.

81 eyewitnesses out of every 100 eyewitnesses heard 3 shots.



3 shells found in the Sniper's nest.



JohnM

3 shells found in the Sniper's nest.

How in the world is that "corroboration"?

Can you say with certainty that no shots were fired from other directions?

Can you show that those three shells were fired that day?

[John Mytton]

3 shells found in the Sniper's nest.

How in the world is that "corroboration"?

Can you say with certainty that no shots were fired from other directions?

Can you show that those three shells were fired that day?

How in the world is that "corroboration"?

3 expended shells along with Norman's recollection directly below is corroborated by 81% of the eyewitnesses.

Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could here the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me.

Can you say with certainty that no shots were fired from other directions?

The amount of eyewitnesses who heard shots from more than 1 direction is statistically very low.

Can you show that those three shells were fired that day?

Can you show they weren't fired that day?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

3 expended shells along with Norman's recollection directly below is corroborated by 81% of the eyewitnesses.

The amount of eyewitnesses who heard shots from more than 1 direction is statistically very low.

Can you show they weren't fired that day?

JohnM

3 expended shells along with Norman's recollection directly below is corroborated by 81% of the eyewitnesses.

Circular argument.
 
The amount of eyewitnesses who heard shots from more than 1 direction is statistically very low.

Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.

Can you show they weren't fired that day?

Don't need to. If you can not prove those three shells were fired that day (and you can't, regardless of what Norman thought he had heard) those shells do not corroborate anything.

[John Mytton]

3 expended shells along with Norman's recollection directly below is corroborated by 81% of the eyewitnesses.

Circular argument.
 
The amount of eyewitnesses who heard shots from more than 1 direction is statistically very low.

Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.

Can you show they weren't fired that day?

Don't need to. If you can not prove those three shells were fired that day (and you can't, regardless of what Norman thought he had heard) those shells do not corroborate anything.

Circular argument.

Huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I keep supplying evidence and you haven't yet explained why it shouldn't be regarded as evidence

Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.

Yeah this old chestnut, they're trying to set up a Lone Gunman and they place shooters in other locations, real smart!

Don't need to.

I knew you couldn't, in fact nobody can precisely date an expended shell and the fact that you even asked shows that you need more ballistics education. Try again!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I keep supplying evidence and you haven't yet explained why it shouldn't be regarded as evidence

81 witnesses corroborate 3 shells
3 shells corroborate 81 witnesses

Circular reasoning!

Yeah this old chestnut, they're trying to set up a Lone Gunman and they place shooters in other locations, real smart!

Beside the point and of no value at all.

I knew you couldn't, in fact nobody can precisely date an expended shell and the fact that you even asked shows that you need more ballistics education. Try again!

JohnM

Great... so since you can not prove that the 3 shells found at the TSBD were fired on 11/22/63, they also can not serve as corroboration of your "81 witnesses" claim.

No need for ballistics… just simple down to earth logic. You should try it once.

[Bill Chapman]

I'm fairly confident that most of the people on this board, most of the time, do not have a clue what it is you are rambling about.

There's that Lord Haughty the Condescender gaslighting again.

 

[John Mytton]

81 witnesses corroborate 3 shells
3 shells corroborate 81 witnesses

Circular reasoning!

Beside the point and of no value at all.

Great... so since you can not prove that the 3 shells found at the TSBD were fired on 11/22/63, they also can not serve as corroboration of your "81 witnesses" claim.

No need for ballistics… just simple down to earth logic. You should try it once.

Great... so since you can not prove that the 3 shells found at the TSBD were fired on 11/22/63, they also can not serve as corroboration of your "81 witnesses" claim.

You keep arguing for what I don't know, all I can do is quote evidence.

Norman who was directly below heard 3 shots and shells hitting the floor.
A vast majority of eyewitnesses heard 3 shots.
3 shells found in the sniper's nest.

No need for ballistics… just simple down to earth logic. You should try it once.

No need for ballistics in a case which involves a rifle murder, really?

JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

3 expended shells along with Norman's recollection directly below is corroborated by 81% of the eyewitnesses.

Circular argument.
 
The amount of eyewitnesses who heard shots from more than 1 direction is statistically very low.

Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.

Can you show they weren't fired that day?

Don't need to. If you can not prove those three shells were fired that day (and you can't, regardless of what Norman thought he had heard) those shells do not corroborate anything.

Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.
>>> You are certainly fond of saying that sort of thing. So, by comparison, does no one seeing or hearing Oswald on the stairs post shots prove that he wasn't on the stairs? Or does this 'Absence-of-Evidence-does-not-necessarily-mean-Evidence-of-Absence' thing of yours short circuit when inconvenient to your contrarianism?

regardless of what Norman thought he had heard
>>> Thought* he heard, huh? LOL.

*You arrogant troll. Do I detect the scent of racism here?
You (and Iacoletti) demean Euins, too.