Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[Andrew Mason]

There is not overwhelming, consistent evidence that Oswald killed JFK.  There's speculation and conjecture, and a little bit of weak, indirect, inconsistent, tainted, circumstantial evidence.

So you would say that Vincent Bugliosi's 52 points are weak? How is it that one can point to 52 different circumstances, all pointing to Oswald as the murderer?

Even Oswald's brother and daughter and, until recently perhaps, his wife, accept that he did the deed.

[Matt Grantham]

Long term memory loss or not on the old board before it was taken down?

That list was picked apart and destroyed several times.

Usually popped up after some LN's mountain-of-evidence got flattened.

And you, apparently, as if that was evidence of anything.
[/quote

 Daughter did not sat she believes he did it Though there are two daughters I believe Mom said he did not do it

[Andrew Mason]

Long term memory loss or not on the old board before it was taken down?

That list was picked apart and destroyed several times. Usually popped up after some LN's mountain-of-evidence got flattened.

The point about circumstantial evidence is that each piece by itself means little. It is the collective effect (including even weak pieces of evidence) of all these circumstances that proves the case.  The question is: is it possible that there could be an innocent person to whom all these pieces of circumstantial evidence point?  The actions of Oswald immediately after the assassination are key pieces of evidence.  The answer that most reasonable people who have examined the evidence is "no". 

You do not attack circumstantial evidence by raising doubts about individual pieces of evidence. There is just too much of it in this case to succeed in doing that. You do it by showing that the circumstantial evidence is consistent with an innocent explanation.

And you, apparently, as if that was evidence of anything.

It is not evidence of anything except that three people who had the greatest interest in convincing themselves that Oswald was innocent could not reach that conclusion from this evidence.

[Matt Grantham]

  The question is: is it possible that there could be an innocent person to whom all these pieces of circumstantial evidence point?  The actions of Oswald immediately after the assassination are key pieces of evidence.

 A conspiracy's purpose would of course be aimed to create evidence to frame an individual, so a simple preponderance is not sufficient What do you think Oswald did immediately after?

[Bill Chapman]

A conspiracy's purpose would of course be aimed to create evidence to frame an individual, so a simple preponderance is not sufficient What do you think Oswald did immediately after?

Thanked his lucky stars when he wasn't held at the TSBD.
Made sure he wasn't caught at home.
Panicked and shot Tippit, the poor dumb cop.
Panicked at the TT

That's it. It's all over now.

[John Iacoletti]

So you would say that Vincent Bugliosi's 52 points are weak? How is it that one can point to 52 different circumstances, all pointing to Oswald as the murderer?

One cannot.  Most of the "53" aren't evidence at all.  He left his wedding ring in a cup.  He preferred Dr Pepper to Coke.  He wasn't chatty with the cab driver.  He didn't read the newspaper in the domino room that day.

Even Oswald's brother and daughter and, until recently perhaps, his wife, accept that he did the deed.

Is that supposedly evidence too?  Which daughter, though?  I wasn't aware that either one of them accepted this.

[John Iacoletti]

The point about circumstantial evidence is that each piece by itself means little. It is the collective effect (including even weak pieces of evidence) of all these circumstances that proves the case.

In this case, the collective effect also means little, because almost none of your "evidence" actually points to Oswald.

The actions of Oswald immediately after the assassination are key pieces of evidence.

No they aren't.  You're taking what Oswald did and speculating that they are the actions of a guilty person.  That's not evidence.

You do not attack circumstantial evidence by raising doubts about individual pieces of evidence. There is just too much of it in this case to succeed in doing that.

No, there really isn't.  Once you try to enumerate it, that becomes patently obvious.

[John Iacoletti]

June said she wanted to see more evidence. Marina changed her mind years later.
That makes 2 out of 3 for your side.

You can count Rachel out too.

Uncle Vinnie says he could convict on 20% of Bug53
Your man would still fry, son.

Not unlike you and other LNers on this forum, Uncle Vinnie mistook arrogance for truth.