You don't know who he saw. You don't get to count a guy who didn't identify anybody as an Oswald witness.
Not with an unfair and biased lineup and testimony from an "utter screwball" who said she didn't recognize anybody in the lineup.
You seem to be under the impression that a witness claim is sufficient to convict. Your law skills are even worse than your art skills.
You don't know who he saw. You don't get to count a guy who didn't identify anybody as an Oswald witness._He saw the same guy fumbling with the gun that the others saw fumbling with the gun and who also ID'd the fumbler as Oswald. Therefore, you'd have to have at least a second gun fumbler on scene. Kinda like Oswald's first ambush of the day: No second gunslinger in sight.
Not with an unfair and biased lineup and testimony from an "utter screwball" who said she didn't recognize anybody in the lineup._Before she straightened out what Ball actually meant. Shame on Ball and shame on you lot.
Re lineup:
You seem to be under the impression that a witness claim is sufficient to convict. Your law skills are even worse than your art skills._'There is no common law rule requiring corroboration in order to convict. A judge can reasonably find guilt based soley on the evidence of a single witness'
http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Corroboration_Although my skillset does include fine art, my work here is more in line with concept and graphic design.
In that vein, I suggest you hesitate before trashing others over their skills
--------
TO WIT
--------
