The preponderance of the evidence

[Rob Caprio]

Preponderance of evidence is a civil court standard and not a criminal court standard.

[Rob Caprio]

The evidence is in the official report. You are the one who apparently believes that it is wrong. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

Each new LNer starts at square one. It is your burden to cite the evidence that supports the WC's claims since you support them.

[Walt Cakebread]

yeah.....no.



- Does that look like any of the other purported handwriting of Oswald?

- This is supposed to be a "register"?  It looks like somebody keeping track of rent payments.

- Why in the world would this be stamped "top secret"?

Because they didn't want anybody scrutinizing the signature of OH Lee....  Because that is NOT Lee's handwriting.....

[Martin Weidmann]

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you what his name was?
Mrs. JOHNSON. O.H. L-e-e [spelling].
Mr. BALL. Did he sign anything with that name?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I have it in my purse.
Mr. BALL. May I see it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I will be glad to--I don't want you to keep it. I want you to--I brought it for your information. I knew you was going to ask that.
Mr. BALL. Now, is this in his handwriting?
Mrs. JOHNSON. This "O. H. Lee" is in his handwriting and this other is in the housekeeper's handwriting--Mrs. Roberts.

So the landlady (Mrs Johnson) didn't do it... it was the housekeeper, Earlene Roberts.

[Rob Caprio]

You're right, Mr Collins--we CTers don't know what happened that day. But neither do you. Your I-once-was-lost-but-now-I'm-found cognitive serenity (some would say smugness) is utterly misplaced. A bad theory that happens to be official and unchanging is no better than a bad theory that is unofficial and mutable. In key respects, it's actually worse because it puts its apologists into the position of lazy, bad-faith inflexibility and (at times) outright reality-denial.

The assassination of JFK remains a radically mysterious tragedy. Warren Gullibles are of use to the ongoing research effort only in the sense that the better ones are skilled at holding Warren Critics' feet to the fire. Other than that? You've all backed the wrong horse!

 

Why are they unwilling to admit this?

[Martin Weidmann]

You questioned my statement and I backed it up with credible evidence. Not only did he lie to the landlady, he lied to Fritz about his lie. You can choose to believe otherwise. I really don?t care.

I questioned your claim that Oswald was a habitual liar and you didn't back that up at all. The biggest liar is somebody who claims that he doesn't lie!

Telling a lie on a registration for a room is of course being dishonest, but you wouldn't believe the number of people who check into hotels or rooms under false names. Do they all become habitual liars to you?

And how about this one. You just lied about it being the landlady (Mrs Johnson) taking Oswald's registration, instead of Earlene Roberts who actually did.

Does that make you a habitual liar?

[Rob Caprio]

The WC concluded that Oswald probably did it
The HSCA concluded that Oswald likely did it.

JAQers/CTers conclude that AnyBodyButOswald did it.
CTers float all sorts of wacko theories and a 'prove-me-wrong' attitude

Probably and likely are good enough for you, but for a lot of people they aren't.

[Rob Caprio]

So you're not going to bother specifying what evidence convinces you that Oswald did it and why.  That's what I figured.  You're just convinced.

They never can.