A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[John Iacoletti]

The question is not whether a jury would necessarily conclude that Oswald was guilty. By that standard, OJ Simpson and El Sayyid Nosair were not responsible for murder. We know they were.

What do you mean, "we"?

  Juries can get hung up on an issue that they can't get past: like "did the gloves fit"? Some wingnut juror could get hung up on whether Oswald ever ordered a gun from Klein's and somehow convince themself that all the other evidence did not matter. 

Your biases are showing.  People who refuse to make the same leaps as you are "wingnuts"?

The questions are: 1. is there evidence on which a successful prosecution could be made that Oswald murdered of JFK? and 2. is there is any evidence that anyone else was involved in planning and/or carrying it out? The answers have to be: 1. Yes and 2. No.  That is as far as anyone can go in this case.

You can't answer question 1 without it actually having been done.  It's just a matter of conjecture how a trial would go.  Yes, there have been a couple of mock trials, but they weren't all that authentic for various reasons.  Question 2 is irrelevant to a finding of guilt or not for Oswald.

The issue that this thread raised, initially: "a scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory", was whether the SBT can withstand scientific scrutiny.  In my view, it cannot.  But that does not in any way change the overwhelming case against Oswald.

SBT or not, there just isn't an "overwhelming case against Oswald".  It requires too many leaps of faith.

[John Mytton]

and there's nothing "directly linking" that particular coupon to that particular envelope

Yeah, only the name and the return address. LOL!

JohnM

[Andrew Mason]

What do you mean, "we"?

You and me (and everyone else who followed the evidence)..... unless you think OJ and Nosair were framed....

Your biases are showing.  People who refuse to make the same leaps as you are "wingnuts"?

No. Just those for whom a doubt on a single piece of evidence makes them ignore all the rest of the evidence.  Sometimes a perverse verdict is all an accused can hope for. 

You can't answer question 1 without it actually having been done.  It's just a matter of conjecture how a trial would go.  Yes, there have been a couple of mock trials, but they weren't all that authentic for various reasons.

There can't be a trial. The question is whether evidence exists that is capable of convincing 12 reasonable persons that Oswald committed the murder.  The answer to that question is "Yes".

[Andrew Mason]

Yeah, only the name and the return address. LOL!

JohnM

And the handwriting!

[John Mytton]

Some wingnut juror could get hung up on whether Oswald ever ordered a gun from Klein's and somehow convince themself that all the other evidence did not matter. 

Clever but I don't think Iacoletti saw the connection.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Clever but I don't think Iacoletti saw the connection.

What I see is that people who don't have a good argument just insult the person with an opposing view and hope that people can't tell the difference.

[John Iacoletti]

Yeah, only the name and the return address. LOL!

Is that supposed to prove that that particular coupon was ever in that particular envelope?

[John Iacoletti]

No. Just those for whom a doubt on a single piece of evidence makes them ignore all the rest of the evidence.

When what little real evidence there is, is weak and circumstantial, and it's all questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way then it's not ignoring anything to call it unreliable.  This isn't a single piece of evidence -- it's every piece of evidence.

The question is whether evidence exists that is capable of convincing 12 reasonable persons that Oswald committed the murder.  The answer to that question is "Yes".

Is this just a guess based on what it takes to convince you of something?