On the Trail of Delusion, Episode 11 with Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

As a retired lawyer, I would point out the distinction between "non-evidence-based assumptions" (i.e., pure speculation) and "reasonable inferences" from the actual evidence. In regard to the Tippit shooting, there is a mountain of actual evidence from which inferences can be drawn. Reasonable inferences, IMO, point decisively toward Oswald. This doesn't mean there are no discrepancies or loose ends - there almost always are, in every crminal case. IMO, however, there are no discrepancies or loose ends that point decisively away from Oswald, or from which reasonable inferences pointing decisively away from Oswald can be drawn.

I'm always kind of amused at the extent to which conspiracy theorists seem to feel compelled to play the role of defense counsel for Oswald. In my life as a lawyer, I used to always say that defense counsel (including some of my best friends) seem to live in some alternate universe where unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are vastly preferred to actual evidence and reasonable inferences.

Your statement But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened'" reflects the defense counsel mentality: "If my unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are not absolutely impossible, you must acquit my ciient." Uh, no. If the actual evidence and reasonable inferences point decisively to Oswald, we are free to reject the alternate universe of his innocence.

Well said, Lance.  I would like to quote you in the two Facebook groups I Moderate, if that'd be okay with you.  Proper credit given, of course.

[John Iacoletti]

Lance, I am equally amused at the extent to which the LN-faithful seem to feel compelled to play the role of prosecuting counsel for Oswald instead of objectively looking at the evidence.  Reliable inferences cannot be made from unreliable evidence, or (the vast majority of the arguments in this case) pure speculation. It's not about "acquitting" anybody.  It's about "just the facts, ma'am".

The only thing "decisive" here is the wishful thinking of the faithful and their chosen scapegoat.

[David Von Pein]

And, of course, John Iacoletti gets to decide if the evidence qualifies as "reliable" or not.

And, naturally, he has decided that ALL of the evidence against Oswald should be labeled "unreliable" because....well....because....well....he gets to decide such things. Naturally.

[Martin Weidmann]

And, of course, John Iacoletti gets to decide if the evidence qualifies as "reliable" or not.

And, naturally, he has decided that ALL of the evidence against Oswald should be labeled "unreliable" because....well....because....well....he gets to decide such things. Naturally.

And, of course, John Iacoletti gets to decide if the evidence qualifies as "reliable" or not.

Huh? I thought it was David von Pein who made those decisions