Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case? Laughable. The question is not whether some rube juror can be fooled by a dim witted defense attorney making a baseless claim like evidence was planted but whether Oswald committed the crime. And the evidence confirms that he did. Just like OJ. At best (even though you cannot support it), you are making a procedural argument to exclude evidence. Not a real rebuttal of the evidence itself.
Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case? Laughable.How else would a defense lawyer review evidence? What's the difference between the OJ trial and the JFK case?
You, like the idiot that you are, claimed that manipulation of evidence was not a possibility because; "If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail"
And I confronted you with the truth that is that OJ did exactly that and got off. Remember Mark Fuhrman and the "planted glove" and what about the missing blood sample? And yet, you stupidly claim it couldn't happen!
At best (even though you cannot support it), you are making a procedural argument to exclude evidence. A procedural argument that can only be made if procedures were not followed, like a lack of chain of custody or a Detective "walking around" for hours with a revolver and then handing it in with initials on it of cops that were not even present at the arrest.
You're making a fool of yourself..... but hey, what else is new?