Sorry CT's, the Mountain of Evidence is Overwhelming!

[John Mytton]

Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions, spent two decades researching and writing Reclaiming History.

Now personally I(JohnM) would have left out a few pieces of Vincent's evidence and after watching this video again I see that a couple of overlayed annotations that corrected and clarified my original summations are now missing? but as anyone with a half a brain can see, the evidence is truly overwhelming.
Btw some CT's will bring up the "wedding ring in a teacup" "LOL", in their opinion is not evidence but consider that this significant piece of evidence is only one half of one of Vincent's original 53 which amounts to less than 1% of his total evidence!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions, spent two decades researching and writing Reclaiming History.

Now personally I(JohnM) would have left out a few pieces of Vincent's evidence and after watching this video again I see that a couple of overlayed annotations that corrected and clarified my original summations are now missing? but as anyone with a half a brain can see, the evidence is truly overwhelming.
Btw some CT's will bring up the "wedding ring in a teacup" "LOL", in their opinion is not evidence but consider that this significant piece of evidence is only one half of one of Vincent's original 53 which amounts to less than 1% of his total evidence!

JohnM

Not this BS again? Can't you come up with something new?

Btw some CT's will bring up the "wedding ring in a teacup" "LOL", in their opinion is not evidence but consider that this significant piece of evidence is only one half of one of Vincent's original 53 which amounts to less than 1% of his total evidence!

You still consider the wedding ring BS to be a "significant piece of evidence"? Wow   

[John Mytton]

Not this BS again? Can't you come up with something new?

"new"

Huh? The case is almost 60 years old! Hahaha!

JohnM

[John Mytton]

You still consider the wedding ring BS to be a "significant piece of evidence"? Wow   

Sorry Martin but Marina knew her Husband a little better than you! LMFAO!

Mr. RANKIN. Had your husband ever left his wedding ring at home that way before?
Mrs. OSWALD. At one time while he was still at Fort Worth, it was inconvenient for him to work with his wedding ring on and he would remove it, but at work--he would not leave it at home. His wedding ring was rather wide, and it bothered him.
I don't know now. He would take it off at work.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

"new"

Huh? The case is almost 60 years old! Hahaha!

JohnM

So, all you've got it the same old BS that nobody but the most insane LNs actually believes? That's good to know.

Sorry Martin but Marina knew her Husband a little better than you! LMFAO!

Mr. RANKIN. Had your husband ever left his wedding ring at home that way before?
Mrs. OSWALD. At one time while he was still at Fort Worth, it was inconvenient for him to work with his wedding ring on and he would remove it, but at work--he would not leave it at home. His wedding ring was rather wide, and it bothered him.
I don't know now. He would take it off at work.

JohnM

Meaningless testimony. I have no intention to debate this further beyond this post, but (according to Marina and Ruth Paine) Oswald went to Irving to get Marina to live together with him again. When she refused he may well have considered that to be the end of his marriage causing him to leave his ring.

The whole ring thing is speculation. What it most certainly isn't is evidence of murder, no matter how Bugs tried to spin it. The mere fact that he used this kind of argument only showed just how weak the case against Oswald really was and still is.

[John Mytton]

So, all you've got it the same old BS that nobody but the most insane LNs actually believes? That's good to know.

Meaningless testimony. I have no intention to debate this further beyond this post, but (according to Marina and Ruth Paine) Oswald went to Irving to get Marina to live together with him again. When she refused he may well have considered that to be the end of his marriage causing him to leave his ring.

The whole ring thing is speculation. What it most certainly isn't is evidence of murder, no matter how Bugs tried to spin it. The mere fact that he used this kind of argument only showed just how weak the case against Oswald really was and still is.

So, all you've got it the same old BS that nobody but the most insane LNs actually believes?

It only happened one way and when you are reduced to tired boring insults, only proves that you are still angry and frustrated that can't provide a plausible alternative. Sad!

I have no intention to debate this further beyond this post

When you have no answers you always take your ball and go home. Thanks for playing!

The mere fact that he used this kind of argument only showed just how weak the case against Oswald really was and still is.

And here we are 60 years later and you haven't even made a dent against the Mountain of Evidence against Oswald. But good luck and maybe you and your CT mates can maybe agree on something, anything?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

It only happened one way and when you are reduced to tired boring insults, only proves that you are still angry and frustrated that can't provide a plausible alternative. Sad!

When you have no answers you always take your ball and go home. Thanks for playing!

And here we are 60 years later and you haven't even made a dent against the Mountain of Evidence against Oswald. But good luck and maybe you and your CT mates can maybe agree on something, anything?

JohnM

It only happened one way

Yes it did and it certainly didn't happen the way the WC and Bugs want us to believe it did. There are just too many contradictions and flawed arguments in the narrative, which is simply too contrived to be true. If a case is as open and shut as you (and Bugs) think it is, it doesn't require 1632 pages of explanations.

When you have no answers you always take your ball and go home. Thanks for playing!

Hilarious. I actually gave you an answer and you either ignored it or didn't (want to) understand it. I said I wasn't going to debate this further because your stupid argument had no merit to begin with and, whether you like it or not, you have now been schooled on the subject.

And here we are 60 years later and you haven't even made a dent against the Mountain of Evidence against Oswald. But good luck and maybe you and your CT mates can maybe agree on something, anything?

Oh I think that all non-LNs agree with eachother that the "believers in the one and only truth" LN cult members are just a waste of time and air.

[John Iacoletti]

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3630.0.html