Oswald's Motive

[Charles Collins]

And yet Oswald’s lack of calmness in the theater and in front of Brewer’s store is also seen as “evidence” of his guilt for murder. Like I said, no matter what he does, it’s guilt.

Different situations.

[John Iacoletti]

So the “state of mind” means whatever you want it to mean to support your conclusion.

[Charles Collins]

So the “state of mind” means whatever you want it to mean to support your conclusion.

Ruby’s state of mind, and his behavior leading up to the shooting, was a big part of his defense, if I remember correctly. The jury didn’t agree with what his first attorney presented for a meaning.

[John Iacoletti]

Speaking of different situations. Nobody had to try to prove that Ruby did it.

[Charles Collins]

Speaking of different situations. Nobody had to try to prove that Ruby did it.

They had to prove that it was “Ruby” who did it, otherwise he would have been released.


Temporary Insanity
If the defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity for the criminal offense, but regains mental competence at the time of prosecution, the defendant is released after the verdict is rendered.



https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/6-1-the-insanity-defense/

[Jon Banks]

So the “state of mind” means whatever you want it to mean to support your conclusion.

They start from the conclusion that Oswald acted alone and work backwards. Circular arguments every time.

[Bill Chapman]

They start from the conclusion that Oswald acted alone and work backwards. Circular arguments every time.

Here's my circular argument
Go ahead: Show us where the twofer is 'pristine'


billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next

[Steve M. Galbraith]

They start from the conclusion that Oswald acted alone and work backwards. Circular arguments every time.

Who is this "they" that did this? On whose orders? And who were Oswald's fellow conspirators? Where was his help?

Were "they" the WC, the HSCA, the Church Committee, multiple news organizations, investigative reporters.....? Multiple generations of Americans over half a century. Which one did this? All of them? Now there's a heckuva conspiracy. The idea that you could get all of these disparate groups to come to the same conclusion is...well....I'm not sure how you can think that can pulled off.

This has been looked at/investigated again and again and again and again. All sorts of groups/entities/organizations have investigated it. Did they all start from a lone assassin view and reject contradictory evidence?

Your argument is they didn't find a conspiracy therefore there was a conspiracy to not find a conspiracy. Now that's circular thinking.

BTW, who were the conspirators that they didn't find? You're vague as to who they were.