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

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

So once again you won't clear up whether you posted as Roger Collins.  You obviously would know the answer.  It is truly mystifying that you won't just say yes or no.  The only reason that I can surmise for your reluctance is that Collins claimed to be a lawyer.  And you lied about that as demonstrated in your complete lack of knowledge regarding the legal system.

When are you going to get around to showing Oswald did it? You are easily distracted, just cough up the evidence

[Richard Smith]

More BS from the king of BS....

As I stated previously,

Your question has been answered. You just don't like the answer. As it was pretty obvious to me that you would keep on pushing this false narrative regardless of what I say, I decided some time ago to have some fun and toy with you and…………. it worked by laying bare the obsession you have with Roger Collins. 

I wonder what it must be like having a former poster on your mind all the time, but it can't be pretty. My honest advice to you; get over it and get a life.

your complete lack of knowledge regarding the legal system.

Care to explain what qualifications you have to make such a determination, mr. Armchair Lawyer? You don't even know the difference between an attorney and a lawyer.

Btw, you didn't have a clue how to answer my question about the Clay Shaw trial, so when Denis offered a plausible, yet not actually correct, answer you just blindly jumped on his bandwagon! That's some legal expertise you have there! 


Oh, just one more thing; how could I possibly lie about something that (according to you) Roger Collins claimed in the past?

Your "answer" is that you "can't clear up" whether you posted as Roger Collins?  Why is that?  You would obviously know if you posted under the name Roger Collins.  In which case the answer is "yes."  If not, the answer is "no."  But you won't provide a straight answer for some inexplicable reason.  Yet another incoherent rant and runaround.  How could you possibly lie about something that Roger Collins claimed?  Are you really that dense?  If you are Roger Collins, and Roger Collins made a false claim then you lied.  Can you follow that obvious line of logic?  Good grief.  And here you seem to imply that you have some legal qualification that others do not.  Just like Roger Collins! What a coincidence.  You criticize others for being an "armchair lawyer".  That implies you have some legal qualifications.  How about giving us a straight answer for once.  Maybe you can clear that up for us as well. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Your "answer" is that you "can't clear up" whether you posted as Roger Collins?  Why is that?  You would obviously know if you posted under the name Roger Collins.  In which case the answer is "yes."  If not, the answer is "no."  But you won't provide a straight answer for some inexplicable reason.  Yet another incoherent rant and runaround.  How could you possibly lie about something that Roger Collins claimed?  Are you really that dense?  If you are Roger Collins, and Roger Collins made a false claim then you lied.  Can you follow that obvious line of logic?  Good grief.  And here you seem to imply that you have some legal qualification that others do not.  Just like Roger Collins! What a coincidence.  You criticize others for being an "armchair lawyer".  That implies you have some legal qualifications.  How about giving us a straight answer for once.  Maybe you can clear that up for us as well.

Your "answer" is that you "can't clear up" whether you posted as Roger Collins?  Why is that?

Why? This also has already been explained to you, but here it is again; clowns like you will never be satisfied with whatever answer I give!

You would obviously know if you posted under the name Roger Collins.  In which case the answer is "yes."  If not, the answer is "no."  But you won't provide a straight answer for some inexplicable reason. Yet another incoherent rant and runaround.

Frustrating isn't it ?     What does it take for you to understand that I am not going to play your little game?

How could you possibly lie about something that Roger Collins claimed?  Are you really that dense?  If you are Roger Collins, and Roger Collins made a false claim then you lied.  Can you follow that obvious line of logic?  Good grief.

Sure, I can follow that logic but saying that I lied IF I am Roger Collins is a long way from what you said previously;

The only reason that I can surmise for your reluctance is that Collins claimed to be a lawyer.  And you lied about that as demonstrated in your complete lack of knowledge regarding the legal system. 

Claiming that I lied because (according to your special brand of "logic") Roger Collins lied about being a lawyer/attorney (which is something you can't prove or possibly even know) leaves no room for "IF" and implies that you have already made up your mind and have decided what my answer to your silly question should be, which makes it a complete waste of time to talk to you about this false narrative. You just believe what you want to believe. I couldn't care less...

And here you seem to imply that you have some legal qualification that others do not.  Just like Roger Collins! What a coincidence. 

More BS... I don't imply to have some legal qualification that others do not. That's just another strawman!

You criticize others for being an "armchair lawyer". 

No, I criticize you in particular for being an "armchair lawyer" because you seem not to know the difference between an attorney and a lawyer (at one time you claimed Collins said he was an attorney, yet other times you say he claimed to be a lawyer, which to you seems to mean the same thing) and claimed previously several times that I do not have any legal knowledge, yet you failed to disclose what qualifications you have to make such a determination, which of course makes your opinion completely worthless.  So, I ask again, what qualifies you to make the determination that I don't have any legal knowledge..... and this time try to answer the question for once, rather that pivot away from it in a desperate attempt to turn the argument around.

That implies you have some legal qualifications.

It implies no such thing. It was a question which you are not answering. How can you determine that somebody has no legal knowledge, if you don't have any legal knowledge yourself? If you are not an "armchair lawyer" just present your legal qualifications and I'll gladly withdraw the comment and we'll take it from there.

C'mon Richard, instead of being the weasel you normally are, step up to the plate and either retract your pathetic statement or explain what qualifications you have to make such a determination

[John Iacoletti]

You denied calling us 'lemmings'
I caught you out. Remember?

I never called you a lemming.

Oswald: 'My Prince, this Iacoletti guy, who has been instrumental in keeping my dream of being remembered for the next 10,000 years alive, is now promoting himself as your advocate'
Satan: 'Nah, he worships me. Even TAE kicked him out. He just sat there looking grumpy and even wore a Tshirt emblazoned with his own name, for Christ's sake.'
Oswald: [SMIRK]

Why is nothing you claim about any subject accurate?

[John Iacoletti]

'weapon' lol

>>> 'Weaponize'

Get in tune with modern-day lingo FFS

I haven't "weaponized" anything.  Yet another buzzword you don't understand.

[John Iacoletti]

When are you going to get around to showing Oswald did it? You are easily distracted, just cough up the evidence

When his arguments get dismantled he resorts to attacking the dismantler.

[John Iacoletti]

Frustrating isn't it ?     What does it take for you to understand that I am not going to play your little game?

"Richard" spent months accusing me of going back and editing a photo of Oswald's arrest report when the post in question had no "Last Edit:" timestamp showing that it had ever been edited.  He'll do anything to distract from the actual evidence.

[Colin Crow]

I never called you a lemming.

Why is nothing you claim about any subject accurate?

I did.