I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it. Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. If there ever was any evidence of that it was destroyed years ago but anyone still claiming Oswald was a Patsy after all these years has a screw loose or they are just misinformed.
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it. Really?
Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.It is of course far easier to just make unsubstantiated claims based on bias....
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.I agree with you. I too think he was guilty but I nevertheless agreed with the verdict of the jury because the prosecution failed to make it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The problem for you is that the Simpson case has nothing to do with the JFK murder, except of course for the comparison that the WC also failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit.There is the biased opinion again.... Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence makes you completely insignificant for this forum.