The WC Counselor who was one of America's Top Trial Lawyers was

[Steve M. Galbraith]

this man shown below, Joseph Ball. Ball was one of six senior counsels to the Warren Commission investigation. Ball wrote the critical portions of the report dealing with the physical evidence of Oswald's guilt (he was in charge of what the WC called the "Area 2" team). If you think the Warren Report was a lie, a fantasy, a charade then you must believe that Ball was a willing participant in that crime. It's unavoidable.

According to his obituary in the LA Times (he died in 2000, more than 35 years after the WC Report was released), Ball was "called one of the leading American trial lawyers of his generation by the National Law Journal, Ball also helped draft the California Evidence Code and Tort Claims Act and played an important role in revising federal rules of criminal procedure."

Ball taught generations of trial lawyers over more than half a century of work "at four law schools, including USC, and was a former president of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the State Bar of California." He earned numerous awards for his work on the law, for the rights of the accused.

At the time of his appointment to the commission, Ball (then 61) was "a leading criminal lawyer, a member of the Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and a professor at the University of Southern California Law School." And "in 1984 the American Bar Association established the Joseph A. Ball Fund to honor outstanding lawyers and support public-service and education programs of the ABA."

If you think Mr. Ball covered up the for the assassination of JFK then present the evidence. No conjecture, no speculations, no made up claims, no "maybes" - evidence. Go ahead please.

His LA Times obituary is here: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-sep-23-me-25521-story.html

[Martin Weidmann]

this man shown below, Joseph Ball. Ball was one of six senior counsels to the Warren Commission investigation. Ball wrote the critical portions of the report dealing with the physical evidence of Oswald's guilt (he was in charge of what the WC called the "Area 2" team). If you think the Warren Report was a lie, a fantasy, a charade then you must believe that Ball was a willing participant in that crime. It's unavoidable.

According to his obituary in the LA Times, Ball was "called one of the leading American trial lawyers of his generation by the National Law Journal, Ball also helped draft the California Evidence Code and Tort Claims Act and played an important role in revising federal rules of criminal procedure."

Ball taught generations of trial lawyers over more than half a century of work "at four law schools, including USC, and was a former president of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the State Bar of California." He earned numerous awards for his work on the law, for the rights of the accused.

At the time of his appointment to the commission, Ball (then 61) was "a leading criminal lawyer, a member of the Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and a professor at the University of Southern California Law School." And "in 1984 the American Bar Association established the Joseph A. Ball Fund to honor outstanding lawyers and support public-service and education programs of the ABA."

If you think Mr. Ball covered up the for the assassination of JFK then present the evidence. No conjecture, no speculations, no made up claims, no "maybes" - evidence. Go ahead please.

His LA Times obituary is here: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-sep-23-me-25521-story.html

If you think the Warren Report was a lie, a fantasy, a charade then you must believe that Ball was a willing participant in that crime. It's unavoidable.

No it isn't. It has already been explained to you over and over again, but you just ignore it so you can keep on making the same bogus argument time after time.

If you think Mr. Ball covered up the for the assassination of JFK then present the evidence. No conjecture, no speculations, no made up claims, no "maybes" - evidence. Go ahead please.

If you think Mr. Ball didn't cover up the for the assassination of JFK then present the evidence. No conjecture, no speculations, no made up claims, no "maybes" - evidence and no obituaries . Go ahead please.

[Ross Lidell]

If you think the Warren Report was a lie, a fantasy, a charade then you must believe that Ball was a willing participant in that crime. It's unavoidable.

No it isn't. It has already been explained to you over and over again, but you just ignore it so you can keep on making the same bogus argument time after time.

If you think Mr. Ball covered up the for the assassination of JFK then present the evidence. No conjecture, no speculations, no made up claims, no "maybes" - evidence. Go ahead please.

If you think Mr. Ball didn't cover up the for the assassination of JFK then present the evidence. No conjecture, no speculations, no made up claims, no "maybes" - evidence and no obituaries . Go ahead please.

I assert that you were part of a conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center by controlled demolition--on 11 September 2000--and blame it on Osama Bin Laden. I challenge you to prove that you're innocent. Go ahead please.

[Martin Weidmann]

I assert that you were part of a conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center by controlled demolition--on 11 September 2000--and blame it on Osama Bin Laden. I challenge you to prove that you're innocent. Go ahead please.

Are you talking to me?

If you are, then I think you are completely missing the point I was making. What is it with LNs and not understanding what is being said.

[Ross Lidell]

The point: If somebody accuses you of "something" and demands that you prove that you are innocent, you cannot ever do that "to their satisfaction".

[Martin Weidmann]

The point: If somebody accuses you of "something" and demands that you prove that you are innocent, you cannot ever do that "to their satisfaction".

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Just like you rather poorly tried to do with your silly assertion, my comment was a sarcastic reply to Galbraith's pathetic question.

Do I need to explain to you why the question was pathetic, or can you figure that out all by yourself?

[Ross Lidell]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Just like you rather poorly tried to do with your silly assertion, my comment was a sarcastic reply to Galbraith's pathetic question.

Do I need to explain to you why the question was pathetic, or can you figure that out all by yourself?

I think Galbraith was using the "good reputation defense". That would not work with most "unfairly accused" including you. Get the point?

[Martin Weidmann]

I think Galbraith was using the "good reputation defense". That would not work with most "unfairly accused" including you. Get the point?

I haven't got a clue what you mean with 'most "unfairly accused" including you', but, other than that, it would indeed not work for me because of a number of reasons;

First of all the "good reputation defense" is a variant of the appeal to authority fallacy
Secondly, to rely on a obituary is meaningless as obituaries normally don't say anything bad about the deceased.
Thirdly, his question was a strawman. It assumed that if there had been a cover up Ball needed to have been part of it, which is in no way certain, nor has anybody suggested it. I have already explained to Galbraith, in another thread, that even people acting in good faith can be fooled by manipulated evidence and thus reach an incorrect conclusion. And he prompty ignored it, of course!

And the most pathetic part of his question was that, after having used conjecture and speculation himself, he took it upon himself to already predetermine what kind of reply he would not accept, thus making the answering of the question nearly impossible.