You can always tell when a CTer starts running scared. They trot out things like "burden of proof" and "convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." When does this fantasy trial begin? Until then we need only look to the evidence to reach conclusions about what likely happened as normal people do when assessing any other event in human history. There is no "burden of proof" outside the criminal justice system which is designed to protect the rights even of the guilty. Fifty plus years after Oswald's death, the only issue is what happened. Not whether he would be convicted in a trial where there is a presumption of innocence. That's the stuff of lazy contrarians playing defense attorney in their mother's basement instead of making an honest assessment of the facts and evidence.
Until then we need only look to the evidence to reach conclusions about what likely happened as normal people do when assessing any other event in human history. So, if two people have a different opinion about what likely happened, who, according to you, would be the "normal" one? Let me guess, the one that agrees with you, right?
There is no "burden of proof" outside the criminal justice system which is designed to protect the rights even of the guilty. True... so let's just cherry pick the evidence and jump to a conclusion and be done with it, right?
Fifty plus years after Oswald's death, the only issue is what happened. True again… so how do we determine what actually happened or should we just take your word for it?
instead of making an honest assessment of the facts and evidence. How in the world are you even remotely qualified to make a determination of what an "honest assessment of the facts and evidence" would be?
Or is this just your way of saying that if somebody doesn't agree with your opinion he's simply not making such an "honest assessment"?
