[Hollywood]

(03-30-2017, 07:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(03-30-2017, 03:51 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-30-2017, 03:09 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(03-30-2017, 02:35 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Lieutenant Day:  "the general pattern of the two prints were the same as Oswald's but the ridges just were not clear enough for me to say they were his"

After Latona's initial examination he could see that the pattern formations were consistent with those on Oswald's hands but they were insufficient to make a definitive determination. Latona told the WC that when he received Day's actual lift card on November 29, "the palm print which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald."

Just as with the fibers found in the paper bag, the lack of an absolute positive identification doesn't preclude the obvious, reasonable conclusion from being reached - the preponderance of the evidence incriminates Oswald and cannot be logically denied. Conspiracy theorists inadvertantly admit the evidence points to Oswald or why else would they claim it is all tainted or corrupted?

I have quoted Scalice's findings and when combined with the above citations, a reasonable conclusion can be made - the prints were Oswald's - that is, to REASONABLE people.

Amusingly, you refuse to do a 'reply' to my statements, so that people don't notice the questions you refuse to answer.

And despite claiming that these refutations "haven't been too impressive" - you've refused to explain why you've only responded to ONE of them.

You simply ignore any contrary evidence... and experts who disagree with Scalice, for example... and believe what you want to believe... but you aren't using evidence to do so.

The proof, of course; is that you cannot refute my refutation of Vincent Bugliosi... he had over 20 years to try to come up with the strongest possible evidence of Oswald's lone guilt - and failed.

It is obvious you don't understand the concept of preponderance of evidence - or you don't even consider it for fear of facing the glaring truth - sorry for not clicking on "reply" - my mistake. Bugliosi and the WC BOTH laid out a most convincing case for LHO's guilt - you KNOW that ALL of the evidence in this case points to Oswald - all you can do is try to shoot down that evidence - you have none proving conspiracy - just suspicions, denials and innuendo. Sorry.

If you cannot defend each and every individual bits of evidence, they don't create a preponderance...

No-one denies that the patsy was framed - this certainly would make the evidence appear to be overwhelmingly against Oswald.

But it's still true that you've not responded to the rest of the series that show that Bugliosi is sometimes silly, and other times simply lying about the evidence.

The fact that you cannot acknowledge even the most BLATANT biases against Oswald shows just where your character lies...

As an example, either reading or not reading a newspaper simply isn't evidence against Oswald - and only the most fanatic kook, desperate to find anything and everything, would ever make such a claim.

"No-one denies that the patsy was framed" Excuse me? People who look at this case without an agenda and no preconceived notions deny that wholeheartedly - your bias is showing...

The newspaper issue was listed as an indication that Oswald was doing things foreign to usual routine - a sign of a person contemplating doing something extraordinary...