CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[Bill Chapman]

If he was honest, it would be 0%

Just like the rest of his contrived "evidence".

- Leaving his wedding ring behind at the Paine house is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Not reading the newspaper in the domino room that morning is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Going to the second floor to get a Coke when he preferred Dr. Pepper is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Not being chatty with the cab driver is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Showing reporters his handcuffed hands is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Marina thinking his eyes looked guilty is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Leaving his blue jacket in the domino room is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Leaving a clipboard on the sixth floor is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.

 

Bug said he exaggerated on purpose

Try to figure that out again; the first time around you got it wrong

[Martin Weidmann]

It demonstrates foreknowledge that he might be killed or arrested that day.  Can you guess why?  Consult Roger Collins on the implications of that.

It demonstrates foreknowledge that he might be killed or arrested that day.

No it doesn't

Btw have you figured out already why the trial against Clay Shaw, as a conspirator in Kennedy's murder, was held in New Orleans, when, as you rather pathetically claimed, the trial could only be held in Texas as the JFK murder fell under that state's jurisdiction?

[John Iacoletti]

Bug said he exaggerated on purpose

Try to figure that out again; the first time around you got it wrong

Tell that to the members of his fan club who call his "exaggerations" evidence.

By the way, when did he say this?  It this another one of your "if memory serves" claims?

[Bill Chapman]

Tell that to the members of his fan club who call his "exaggerations" evidence.

By the way, when did he say this?  It this another one of your "if memory serves" claims?

You should be the one concerned with memory

[John Iacoletti]

You should be the one concerned with memory

I'll take that as an "I don't know".

 

[Bill Chapman]

I'll take that as an "I don't know".

 

You don't

[Richard Smith]

It demonstrates foreknowledge that he might be killed or arrested that day.

No it doesn't

Btw have you figured out already why the trial against Clay Shaw, as a conspirator in Kennedy's murder, was held in New Orleans, when, as you rather pathetically claimed, the trial could only be held in Texas as the JFK murder fell under that state's jurisdiction?

LOL.  Try to figure out the difference for jurisdictional purposes.  Can you afford Roger Collins' fees for his legal advice on the topic?  Great contrarian argument on the ring "No it doesn't".  Whew.  Let's see.  Oswald leaves his wedding ring at home for the first and only time of his marriage on the very day he is arrested for assassinating the president and killing a police officer.  What bad luck for him if it was just a wild coincidence.  If leaving his wedding ring at home was the ONLY evidence against Oswald in those cases, it would not be very probative.  In the totality of all the evidence, however, (known as planet Earth) it becomes highly probative.  It points to foreknowledge of some event that day that might preclude him from ever seeing his family again. 

[John Iacoletti]

LOL.  Try to figure out the difference for jurisdictional purposes.  Can you afford Roger Collins' fees for his legal advice on the topic?  Great contrarian argument on the ring "No it doesn't".  Whew.  Let's see.  Oswald leaves his wedding ring at home for the first and only time of his marriage on the very day he is arrested for assassinating the president and killing a police officer.  What bad luck for him if it was just a wild coincidence.  If leaving his wedding ring at home was the ONLY evidence against Oswald in those cases, it would not be very probative.  In the totality of all the evidence, however, (known as planet Earth) it becomes highly probative.  It points to foreknowledge of some event that day that might preclude him from ever seeing his family again.

The only thing it points to is your post-hoc rationalization.