Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Martin Weidmann]

In which we learn that even if 100 witnesses identified Oswald as the shooter and Oswald had Tippit's blood on his pants or shoes there would still be doubt of his guilt.  This is known as the impossible contrarian standard of proof.  No person in history could ever be convicted of a crime if it were simply enough to suggest that because some witnesses in history ID'd the wrong person that no witness testimony could ever be used.  And this from the guy who constantly mocks the evidence against Oswald as being "circumstantial" while here arguing that direct evidence is useless.   And, of course, there is not just eyewitness ID of Oswald as the shooter.   Oswald has the same two brands of ammo on him when arrested that were used to kill Tippit.  What are the odds?  What are the odds Oswald is even carrying a pistol on him when arrested at the TT if he had nothing to do with this?  It is laughable.

The only thing laughable is your pathetic reply.

In which we learn that even if 100 witnesses identified Oswald as the shooter and Oswald had Tippit's blood on his pants or shoes there would still be doubt of his guilt.

Yet another strawman. Nobody said anything of the kind. Are you really this shallow?

Perhaps you should try to address all the points I have raised for once, so that we can all see beyond doubt that you only have a basic comprehension level and haven't got a clue what you are only talking about. All you can do is parrot the WC narrative over and over again without questioning even the slightest detail.

[Richard Smith]

The only thing laughable is your pathetic reply.

In which we learn that even if 100 witnesses identified Oswald as the shooter and Oswald had Tippit's blood on his pants or shoes there would still be doubt of his guilt.

Yet another strawman. Nobody said anything of the kind. Are you really this shallow?

Perhaps you should try to address all the points I have raised for once, so that we can all see beyond doubt that you only have a basic comprehension level and haven't got a clue what you are only talking about. All you can do is parrot the WC narrative over and over again without questioning even the slightest detail.

So dishonest.  Dan asked if 100 people identified Oswald running down the road with a jacket on after the Tippit shooting would that be conclusive. And your response:   "No, at least not a definitive one, because eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence."  So 100 witnesses confirming that it was Oswald doesn't do it for you. 

btw:  eyewitness testimony is considered "direct" evidence.  You are constantly belittling the case against Oswald as "circumstantial" but here in your long, rambling post you basically conclude that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.  Thereby leaving no evidence - direct or circumstantial - that could ever satisfy you of Oswald's guilt.  The old impossible standard of proof trick as Maxwell Smart would say. 

[Martin Weidmann]

So dishonest.  Dan asked if 100 people identified Oswald running down the road with a jacket on after the Tippit shooting would that be conclusive. And your response:   "No, at least not a definitive one, because eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence."  So 100 witnesses confirming that it was Oswald doesn't do it for you. 

btw:  eyewitness testimony is considered "direct" evidence.  You are constantly belittling the case against Oswald as "circumstantial" but here in your long, rambling post you basically conclude that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.  Thereby leaving no evidence - direct or circumstantial - that could ever satisfy you of Oswald's guilt.  The old impossible standard of proof trick as Maxwell Smart would say.

And again he ignores everything I have written and just makes up his own story. What a joke!

you basically conclude that eyewitness testimony is unreliable

Because it is, fool.... Which is why it needs corrobaration.

Have a talk with the people of the Innocence Project;

The Innocence Project states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."[2] This non-profit organization uses DNA evidence to reopen criminal convictions that were made before DNA testing was available as a tool in criminal investigations.

And, before you say something else that's stupid, try to use your brian for once (if you have one) to figure out and understand why all witnesses identifiying the same man in a proper and fair line up is a mathematical impossibility.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1

But I bet you are not interested in any of that, are you now, Parrot?

[Richard Smith]

And again he ignores everything I have written and just makes up his own story. What a joke!

you basically conclude that eyewitness testimony is unreliable

Because it is, fool.... Which is why it needs corrobaration.

Have a talk with the people of the Innocence Project;

The Innocence Project states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."[2] This non-profit organization uses DNA evidence to reopen criminal convictions that were made before DNA testing was available as a tool in criminal investigations.

And, before you say something else that's stupid, try to use your brian for once (if you have one) to figure out and understand why all witnesses identifiying the same man in a proper and fair line up is a mathematical impossibility.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1

But I bet you are not interested in any of that, are you now, Parrot?

One hundred people would not constitute "corroboration"?  That was the question you were asked.  I just quoted your own response to that question.   And if they all did identify Oswald, you contend there is something inherently wrong with all witnesses identifying the same person.  Round and round it goes.  You attack the evidence as circumstantial, dismiss direct evidence as unreliable, and then suggest that there is something sinister if everyone identified the same suspect (but of course if one witness didn't ID Oswald you would cling to that as creating doubt and express no doubts about that witness).  This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

[Martin Weidmann]

One hundred people would not constitute "corroboration"?  That was the question you were asked.  I just quoted your own response to that question.   And if they all did identify Oswald, you contend there is something inherently wrong with all witnesses identifying the same person.  Round and round it goes.  You attack the evidence as circumstantial, dismiss direct evidence as unreliable, and then suggest that there is something sinister if everyone identified the same suspect (but of course if one witness didn't ID Oswald you would cling to that as creating doubt and express no doubts about that witness).  This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

One hundred people would not constitute "corroboration"?  That was the question you were asked. I just quoted your own response to that question.

Which was that studies have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that, regardless of the number, it is a mathematical impossibility that all the witnesses identify the same man.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1

And if they all did identify Oswald, you contend there is something inherently wrong with all witnesses identifying the same person

I do not contend anything of the kind. I merely stated that studies have shown that. But you wouldn't be interested in science and studies, right? After all, you're not a Trump lover for nothing!

This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

Well, yes.. I can well imagine it would look that way to a guy (like you) who believes in fairytales.

I'm getting tired of your BS. I'm going to wait for a response by Dan. He seems far more reasonable than you will ever be.

[Richard Smith]

One hundred people would not constitute "corroboration"?  That was the question you were asked. I just quoted your own response to that question.

Which was that studies have shown beyond a reasonable dout that, regardless of the number, it is a mathematical impossibility that all the witnesses identify the same man.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1

And if they all did identify Oswald, you contend there is something inherently wrong with all witnesses identifying the same person

I do not contend anything of the kind. I merely stated that studies have shown that. But you wouldn't be interested in science and studies, right?

This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

Well, yes.. I can well imagine it would look that way to a guy (like you) who believes in fairytales.

I'm getting tired of your BS. I'm going to wait for a response by Dan. He seems far more reasonable than you will ever be.

Dan is the person who asked you the question.  We have learned that your position is that both circumstantial and direct evidence are unreliable and insufficient to prove Oswald's guilt.  Thereby rendering it impossible to use any evidence to ever prove Oswald's guilt.   Why is it so difficult for you to be honest?  Just say that your position is that there is no evidence that can prove Oswald's guilt to your satisfaction.  Why argue that position over and over but then refuse to acknowledge it?  Very bizarre.

[Martin Weidmann]

Dan is the person who asked you the question.  We have learned that your position is that both circumstantial and direct evidence are unreliable and insufficient to prove Oswald's guilt.  Thereby rendering it impossible to use any evidence to ever prove Oswald's guilt.   Why is it so difficult for you to be honest?  Just say that your position is that there is no evidence that can prove Oswald's guilt to your satisfaction.  Why argue that position over and over but then refuse to acknowledge it?  Very bizarre.

Dan is the person who asked you the question.

Exactly, and I gave him my answer. I now wait for his reply, so why are you still butting in with your stupid "conclusions", pathetic propaganda and misrepresentations. Let the adults talk for once, clown!

[Dan O'meara]

Anything conclusive rather than a mere assumption

And, as far as this case is concerned, what specific evidence would you consider to be "conclusive"?