What?s the MINIMUM number of people required for your CT to work?

[Bill Chapman]

As does the claim that Oswald shot JFK.  What's your point?

But where did you pull the "42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators" nonsense from?

From your hero

"Former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi estimated that a total of 42 groups, 82 assassins, and 214 people had been accused at one time or another in various conspiracy scenarios"[2]

[John Iacoletti]

From your hero

"Former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi estimated that a total of 42 groups, 82 assassins, and 214 people had been accused at one time or another in various conspiracy scenarios"[2]

You're contradicting yourself, Bill.

Where did Bugliosi claim or imply that all 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators were involved?

[John Iacoletti]

.

 
did he say it or not?

While Bill tries to figure that out, let me point out that just because Bugliosi has "estimated" something, that doesn't make it true.  Did he name these 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators, and who proposed them, or is this just his usual made-up rhetoric?

[Bill Chapman]

I'll ask again, because you're determined to avoid the question.  How is this evidence of murder?

Even in combination, your argument is "I don't believe an innocent person would do X, therefore he killed JFK".  That's not evidence, it's rhetoric.  You can't "reason" your way into making evidence of something that is not evidence.

By leaving out the ring this time (arguably the most important part of the ring-money thing), you are minimizing in order to foolishly claim that LNers think that merely giving his wife money would convict.

[John Iacoletti]

By leaving out the ring this time (arguably the most important part of the ring-money thing), you are minimizing in order to foolishly claim that LNers think that merely giving his wife money would convict.

 

Two things that are not evidence of murder, when combined would somehow "convict".

[John Iacoletti]

"How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder?"

>>>On its own? Where did anyone say that?

That comes straight from your beloved cult leader.

https://books.google.com/books?id=JfJABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA293#v=onepage&q&f=false

"But in the Kennedy case, all the evidence, without exception, points toward Oswald?s guilt. In Reclaiming History, I set forward fifty-three separate pieces of evidence that point toward his guilt".

[Bill Chapman]

Two things that are not evidence of murder, when combined would somehow "convict".

Again, why avoid the ring, John? No clue into Oswald's state of mind... good, bad or ugly?

[John Iacoletti]

Again, why avoid the ring, John? No clue into Oswald's state of mind... good, bad or ugly?

I didn't "avoid" anything.  Steve mentioned the money as "evidence", and didn't mention the ring.  So why would I bring it up in my reply?

But since you asked, at least Michael's supposition is actually based on the knowledge that Lee and Marina were quarreling the night before and that she refused to move back in with him.  Your supposition is based on FA.