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

[John Iacoletti]

Memo to Iacoletti:  There is no reasonable doubt.

Memo to Graves:

[John Iacoletti]

This is two-way traffic, Bubba: You lot are the ones stuck with making the 'wild-ass guesses'
Like Jack Dougherty as shooter, for instance... show us the evidence for that little gem, Sherlock.

Why?  You've never shown a single piece of evidence that Oswald was a shooter, Holmes.

[John Iacoletti]

Or as Bugliosi put it, there's no doubt at all

High-5

Easy to claim.  Actually demonstrating it...not so much.

[Thomas Graves]

Memo to Graves:

Iacoletti,

What's that moving around on my screen?

(Like you, all I can see are blobs.)

Is it ... gasp ... a guy ... wearing a Baby Boy Blue-colored headscarf and real dark-colored Levis tucked, very GQ-like, into his very high, Tony Lama flesh-colored cowboy boots?

Someone you filmed during your most-recent full-moon ritual in the garden?

What in the world is it?

OMG -- The Evil, Evil, Evil CIA Mastermind???

Please help me out here, John!

-- MWT   

[Richard Smith]

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.

[Colin Crow]

Didn't Delphine Roberts (and her daughter) claim that Bannister and Oswald were acquainted?

[Martin Weidmann]

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"?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

And they made that poor Frank Olson guy take, like, three ounces of it and jump out of a window, didn't they?

And, according to Douglas Valentine ...

   The government admitted that Olson had been dosed with LSD, without his knowledge, nine days before his death. After the family announced they planned to sue the Agency over Olson's "wrongful death," the government offered them an out-of-court settlement of $1,250,000, later reduced to $750,000, which they accepted. The family received apologies from President Gerald Ford and then-CIA director William Colby.