[Ben Holmes]

(8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever. 

Silly! Since when does "walking fast" have anything at all to do with indicting someone??? Sometimes Bugliosi really stretches to try to find something to 'prove' Oswald's guilt, this is a good example of his tendency to do this.

Again we see the theme of presuming guilt on Oswald's part, then pretending that everything he did and said shows that guilt. Since when does "walking fast" show guilt of anything at all???
 

Quote:Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together. 
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did. 
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did. 

I'll leave it to the reader to analyze this testimony... because if I pointed out the obvious, Patrick wouldn't be able to refute it anyway...

[Patrick C]

(10-24-2016, 02:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever. 

Silly! Since when does "walking fast" have anything at all to do with indicting someone??? Sometimes Bugliosi really stretches to try to find something to 'prove' Oswald's guilt, this is a good example of his tendency to do this.

Again we see the theme of presuming guilt on Oswald's part, then pretending that everything he did and said shows that guilt. Since when does "walking fast" show guilt of anything at all???
 

Quote:Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together. 
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did. 
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did. 

I'll leave it to the reader to analyze this testimony... because if I pointed out the obvious, Patrick wouldn't be able to refute it anyway...

Of course walking  fast is not an indication of guilt - alone. Oswald might have wanted to not be late for work for example.

But the point is that it is oneof several actions that tend to support that Oswald was acting out of the ordinary or conducting something that could be seen as susicious.

You don't have to be in law enforcement to know that.....so it is a significant point that VB brought up. 
No pro lone gunman supporter is going to say that walking fast taken as a seperate point is evidence of Oswald's guilt.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-25-2016, 01:43 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(10-24-2016, 02:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever. 

Silly! Since when does "walking fast" have anything at all to do with indicting someone??? Sometimes Bugliosi really stretches to try to find something to 'prove' Oswald's guilt, this is a good example of his tendency to do this.

Again we see the theme of presuming guilt on Oswald's part, then pretending that everything he did and said shows that guilt. Since when does "walking fast" show guilt of anything at all???
 

Quote:Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together. 
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did. 
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did. 

I'll leave it to the reader to analyze this testimony... because if I pointed out the obvious, Patrick wouldn't be able to refute it anyway...

Of course walking  fast is not an indication of guilt - alone. Oswald might have wanted to not be late for work for example.

But the point is that it is oneof several actions that tend to support that Oswald was acting out of the ordinary or conducting something that could be seen as susicious.

You don't have to be in law enforcement to know that.....so it is a significant point that VB brought up. 
No pro lone gunman supporter is going to say that walking fast taken as a seperate point is evidence of Oswald's guilt.

If by itself it doesn't indicate any guilt - why does it suddenly do so when combined with other actions that don't indicate any guilt?

Don't worry, I don't expect you to have enough courage to answer that question...

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:If by itself it doesn't indicate any guilt - why does it suddenly do so when combined with other actions that don't indicate any guilt?

JFK Darwin Award alert......

Congratulations Holmes, that has to be one of the most stupid posts even you have produced....

Obviously if items of circumstancial evidence and or direct witness testimony are added together, they can form the stronger weight of evidence. In isolation they may not have the same stregth.

A legal source states:-

"Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another."

I suggest that if this is how your mind works that you give up sharing your interest in the case with others - your views are clearly founded on logical misconceptions and skewed assimilation.

Socrates said words to the effect that a wise and educated person appreciated what they didn't know. You are the antithesis of that position.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-29-2016, 10:47 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:If by itself it doesn't indicate any guilt - why does it suddenly do so when combined with other actions that don't indicate any guilt?

JFK Darwin Award alert......

Congratulations Holmes, that has to be one of the most stupid posts even you have produced....

Obviously if items of circumstancial evidence and or direct witness testimony are added together, they can form the stronger weight of evidence. In isolation they may not have the same stregth.

A legal source states:-

"Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another."

I suggest that if this is how your mind works that you give up sharing your interest in the case with others - your views are clearly founded on logical misconceptions and skewed assimilation.

Socrates said words to the effect that a wise and educated person appreciated what they didn't know. You are the antithesis of that position.

So you publicly admit that non of these 53 items demonstrate any guilt on the part of Lee Harvey Oswald.

My question still remains...