Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Martin Weidmann]

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

Ignoring all together my extensive answer to your question and simply repeating your first question?
That's the game you want to play?

Ok, the evidence is conclusive when it is presented, free from assumptions and speculations, in such a way that no reasonable other alternative conclusion can be reached on the basis of that evidence.

Or, as the Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement states;

Evidence that must, as a matter of law, be taken to establish some fact in issue and that cannot be disputed.

Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?

[Dan O'meara]

Ignoring all together my extensive answer to your question and simply repeating your first question?
That's the game you want to play?

Ok, the evidence is conclusive when it is presented, free from assumptions and speculations, in such a way that no reasonable other alternative conclusion can be reached on the basis of that evidence.

Or, as the Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement states;

Evidence that must, as a matter of law, be taken to establish some fact in issue and that cannot be disputed.

Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?

You've not answered the question Martin - what specific evidence in this case would you, personally, consider "conclusive"?

[Martin Weidmann]

You've not answered the question Martin - what specific evidence in this case would you, personally, consider "conclusive"?

I'm sorry if you did not understand or did not like my answer, but I have no other way of answering your question.

I notice you still keep ignoring my extensive reply to you and also did not answer my straight forward question. Why is that?

Here is the question again; Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?

[Dan O'meara]

I'm sorry if you did not understand or did not like my answer, but I have no other way of answering your question.

I notice you still keep ignoring my extensive reply to you and also did not answer my straight forward question. Why is that?

Here is the question again; Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?

You've still not answered the question Martin.
It's not a question of me not liking the answer or not understanding the answer.
You have not answered the question.
How can I dislike or not understand it if you haven't answered the question - what specifically would you consider as conclusive evidence in this case?
It's not a trick question.
Just one example of evidence that applies to this case that you would accept as being conclusive.

[Martin Weidmann]

You've still not answered the question Martin.
It's not a question of me not liking the answer or not understanding the answer.
You have not answered the question.
How can I dislike or not understand it if you haven't answered the question - what specifically would you consider as conclusive evidence in this case?
It's not a trick question.
Just one example of evidence that applies to this case that you would accept as being conclusive.

Sorry, I'm not playing that game.

You asking questions yet not answering mine isn't a conversation or a discussion. It's classic LN MO

"Conclusive evidence" is not a subjective standard. Evidence either allows for only one reasonable conclusion. Or it allows for more than one reasonable conclusion, in which case it's not conclusive. Apply that to any piece of evidence or combination of evidence and you'll have your answer.

[Dan O'meara]

Sorry, I'm not playing that game.

You asking questions yet not answering mine isn't a conversation or a discussion. It's classic LN MO

"Conclusive evidence" is not a subjective standard. Evidence either allows for only one reasonable conclusion. Or it allows for more than one reasonable conclusion, in which case it's not conclusive. Apply that to any piece of evidence or combination of evidence and you'll have your answer.

I asked you a question and rather than answer it you asked me a question and now hide behind that as the reason not to reveal your position as far as this case is concerned.
Let's have a look at the question you asked that you consider so important:

"Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?"

Would I like it?
Why would I like it?
This is the all-important question you feel needs answering before you can answer the question I have repeatedly asked you?
Let me make it clear - my answer to your question is "No, I wouldn't like it."

Now we've managed to roll that massive stone away...
Are you going to avoid, for the fourth time, this really straight-forward, non-threatening question - In this case, what specific evidence would you find conclusive?

Just imagine if your answer is "There is no specific evidence, no matter how powerful, that I would consider conclusive."
Just imagine what that would say about you and your presence on this forum.

[Martin Weidmann]

I asked you a question and rather than answer it you asked me a question and now hide behind that as the reason not to reveal your position as far as this case is concerned.
Let's have a look at the question you asked that you consider so important:

"Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?"

Would I like it?
Why would I like it?
This is the all-important question you feel needs answering before you can answer the question I have repeatedly asked you?
Let me make it clear - my answer to your question is "No, I wouldn't like it."

Now we've managed to roll that massive stone away...
Are you going to avoid, for the fourth time, this really straight-forward, non-threatening question - In this case, what specific evidence would you find conclusive?

Just imagine if your answer is "There is no specific evidence, no matter how powerful, that I would consider conclusive."
Just imagine what that would say about you and your presence on this forum.

as the reason not to reveal your position as far as this case is concerned.

Exactly what I thought. Your non trick question was intended to get me to reveal to you a "position as far as this case is concerned" which you can then focus on and attack. It is a classic LN strategy!

You now even go so far as to preempt what I might say, just in case I do not reveal my position. The only problem with all this is that it is a game that doesn't work, because, contrary what LNs claim, I have no fixed position about this case. I have no agenda and no horse in this race. I just find it an interesting case. I'm not nearly in as deep as some of the others, who spend all or most their time on several boards. I am only active here and nowhere else. If the evidence conclusively showed that Oswald was guilty and acted alone that would be fine by me. But IMO it doesn't, so I remain unconvinced, which is - if you like - my position in this case.

I still consider it possible that Oswald did it alone, that he did it with others and/or that he was set up as part of a conspiracy, but I am pretty sure by now that the events didn't happen the way the WC believed they did. All I have been doing during my presence on this forum is scrutinize evidence and bogus claims, mainly from LNs, because they defend the official narrative or, in some cases, just troll and play childish games. I have not scrutinized many CT claims because I simply have discarded most of them from the outset as outrageous because they make little sense and frequently lack any real evidentiary basis. For the really dishonest LNs here this alone is reason to claim I am a CT despite the fact that I do not have a conspiracy theory, nor do I promote one. Those "if you are not with us, then you are against us" clowns only muddy the water.

Let's see if you understand where I am coming from, by giving you an example; my personal view is that O.J. Simpson most probably killed his ex-wife and her friend, but I nevertheless consider the jury's verdict in the criminal trial a correct one because the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The reason for not giving you a specific piece of evidence I would consider conclusive is that there hardly is any in this case. That's why the case is so weak and falls apart as soon as one digs a bit deeper than the surface. Everywhere you look there is evidence contradicated by other evidence. None of the discrepancies are suffiently addressed or explained, except pehaps by assumptions and speculation. Instead they are ignored and brushed aside as insignificant, when there is nothing insignificant about evidence regardless which way it points.

The WC narrative is IMO a badly written prosecutorial brief, in which claims are made that are not supported by the evidence in the 26 volumes. It would not survive scrutiny by a qualified defense lawyer in a proper court setting. Having said that, as there will never be a trial, all I can do is try to figure out what actually happened. And this is where I get to the point of conclusive evidence. Let me give you this example, which involves a chain of pieces of evidence which all link together and thus corroborate eachother;

Within the official narrative there is a preponderance of evidence which, when considered honestly, shows conclusively that J.D. Tippit was in fact shot before 1:10 PM and declared dead at Methodist Hospital at 1:15 PM. I have no intention, however, to lay out that case for you simply because it would be a waste of my time. I've tried it before and, instead of serious discussion and a willingness to even understand what I was saying, the only instant reaction of the LN crowd was ridicule, false statements and attempts to pivot away from the larger issue to a minor detail and thus derail the entire conversation. Which brings me back to my original observation that it would be counter productive to explain "my position as far as this case is concerned" - even if I had one - beyond what I have just explained to you.

So, I repeat; evidence is conclusive when it is presented, free from assumptions and speculations, in such a way that no reasonable other alternative conclusion can be reached on the basis of that evidence.

"Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?"

Would I like it?
Why would I like it?
This is the all-important question you feel needs answering before you can answer the question I have repeatedly asked you?
Let me make it clear - my answer to your question is "No, I wouldn't like it."

Now that we have established that you wouldn't like it if non-conclusicve evidence, for which there is more than one reasonable explanation, would be used against you if you were ever a defendant in a criminal case, let me ask you this;

If you were a juror at a criminal case would you feel comfortable to vote guilty based on similar non-conclusive evidence?

 

[Dan O'meara]

as the reason not to reveal your position as far as this case is concerned.

Exactly what I thought. Your non trick question was intended to get me to reveal to you a "position as far as this case is concerned" which you can then focus on and attack. It is a classic LN strategy!

You now even go so far as to preempt what I might say, just in case I do not reveal my position. The only problem with all this is that it is a game that doesn't work, because, contrary what LNs claim, I have no fixed position about this case. I have no agenda and no horse in this race. I just find it an interesting case. I'm not nearly in as deep as some of the others, who spend all or most their time on several boards. I am only active here and nowhere else. If the evidence conclusively showed that Oswald was guilty and acted alone that would be fine by me. But IMO it doesn't, so I remain unconvinced, which is - if you like - my position in this case.

I still consider it possible that Oswald did it alone, that he did it with others and/or that he was set up as part of a conspiracy, but I am pretty sure by now that the events didn't happen the way the WC believed they did. All I have been doing during my presence on this forum is scrutinize evidence and bogus claims, mainly from LNs, because they defend the official narrative or, in some cases, just troll and play childish games. I have not scrutinized many CT claims because I simply have discarded most of them from the outset as outrageous because they make little sense and frequently lack any real evidentiary basis. For the really dishonest LNs here this alone is reason to claim I am a CT despite the fact that I do not have a conspiracy theory, nor do I promote one. Those "if you are not with us, then you are against us" clowns only muddy the water.

Let's see if you understand where I am coming from, by giving you an example; my personal view is that O.J. Simpson most probably killed his ex-wife and her friend, but I nevertheless consider the jury's verdict in the criminal trial a correct one because the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The reason for not giving you a specific piece of evidence I would consider conclusive is that there hardly is any in this case. That's why the case is so weak and falls apart as soon as one digs a bit deeper than the surface. Everywhere you look there is evidence contradicated by other evidence. None of the discrepancies are suffiently addressed or explained, except pehaps by assumptions and speculation. Instead they are ignored and brushed aside as insignificant, when there is nothing insignificant about evidence regardless which way it points.

The WC narrative is IMO a badly written prosecutorial brief, in which claims are made that are not supported by the evidence in the 26 volumes. It would not survive scrutiny by a qualified defense lawyer in a proper court setting. Having said that, as there will never be a trial, all I can do is try to figure out what actually happened. And this is where I get to the point of conclusive evidence. Let me give you this example, which involves a chain of pieces of evidence which all link together and thus corroborate eachother;

Within the official narrative there is a preponderance of evidence which, when considered honestly, shows conclusively that J.D. Tippit was in fact shot before 1:10 PM and declared dead at Methodist Hospital at 1:15 PM. I have no intention, however, to lay out that case for you simply because it would be a waste of my time. I've tried it before and, instead of serious discussion and a willingness to even understand what I was saying, the only instant reaction of the LN crowd was ridicule, false statements and attempts to pivot away from the larger issue to a minor detail and thus derail the entire conversation. Which brings me back to my original observation that it would be counter productive to explain "my position as far as this case is concerned" - even if I had one - beyond what I have just explained to you.

So, I repeat; evidence is conclusive when it is presented, free from assumptions and speculations, in such a way that no reasonable other alternative conclusion can be reached on the basis of that evidence.

Now that we have established that you wouldn't like it if non-conclusicve evidence, for which there is more than one reasonable explanation, would be used against you if you were ever a defendant in a criminal case, let me ask you this;

If you were a juror at a criminal case would you feel comfortable to vote guilty based on similar non-conclusive evidence?

"Exactly what I thought. Your non trick question was intended to get me to reveal to you a "position as far as this case is concerned" which you can then focus on and attack. It is a classic LN strategy!"

It wasn't a trick question.
You're unwillingness to answer such a straight-forward question (which you have still failed to do) is interesting (IMO), as it suggests to me there is something you want to hide about the way you view this case.
You are clearly anti-LNer.
By the way - I'm a CTer, not an LNer.

"If you were a juror at a criminal case would you feel comfortable to vote guilty based on similar non-conclusive evidence?"

If a case hinged on a single piece of evidence that could be interpreted in various ways I would not vote guilty.
I think I recognise a difference in the way we approach things here.
You look at each single piece of evidence and judge it in isolation - is it conclusive or not. Can it be interpreted in a number of ways. So, if there are 10 pieces of evidence you will look at each one individually and cast aside any and all that don't fit your criteria.
I am more inclined to look at the narrative into which all 10 pieces of information fit. Just because a piece of evidence can be interpreted in a number of ways doesn't necessarily negate it - one of the interpretations may well be correct.
For me it's about the narrative into which all 10 pieces must fit. Each piece may not be conclusive in and of itself but if there is only one sensible narrative into which all 10 pieces can fit, and each piece can be interpreted in a way that fits said narrative, I am more comfortable making a judgement about it.
If there are multiple narratives that can be constructed from the same 10 pieces of evidence then I must discern the likelihood of each narrative.