[Ben Holmes]

(08-06-2016, 11:34 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 01:20 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  Ok, well where is the evidence that some one else committed the murder.....you have been WOEFULLY short on that one Ben, other than you glib speculation of multiple shooters.....

Name people who saw some one fire from Daltex, County Records.......your south western Plaza spot.....come on, name them.....tell us about the other bullets...where are they...?

(6) On Friday morning, Oswald placed a long paper-wrapped package in the back seat of Frazier's car.

Until you can put a rifle in that package, it does *nothing* to indict Oswald.

I TOTALLY disagree. The fact that Oswald took a package to work on that day is highly suspicious and indicative of guilt. He owned a rifle, the rifle was missing from the blanket. His rifle was found in the 6th floor. He carried a package into work on that day of all others.....why?

Why would he make a special trip on the Thursday and not the Friday for curtain rods...? It is ridiculous...

The fact that someone took a package to work isn't evidence of guilt... I rather suspect that there were a number of others who brought their lunch, for example. By your standards - that's evidence that they murdered JFK.

I assert that it's not.
 

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:It's also worth noting that every witness who saw that package, and testified about it, stated that it was too short to contain a rifle.

"every" - yeah right is that 3 people....?

So what, they were wrong about the length. Easily done.

You've gone no-where. EVERY SINGLE PERSON who saw the package stated that it was too short. THAT'S A FACT. One could wonder what you base your case on, since you don't believe ANY OF THE WITNESSES...
 

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Their testimony is quite compelling, because of the way that they stated Oswald had carried the package, with his palm under the package, and the top of the package was UNDER his armpit.

Again I totally disagree, I don't think it is compelling at all. The gun could easily have been held at an angle protruding out at the front of Oswald's arm pit and not visible from the rear.

Yep... it's easy to simply dismiss all the eyewitnesses, and claim that they were ALL mistaken or lying. But when a prosecutor makes out a case using these '53 bits of evidence' - and still can't convince a majority of people - then clearly something is wrong.

Patrick C Wrote:And......I don't think for one moment Bugliosi is really saying that each single point is "proof" of Oswald's guilt. He is saying that there an awful lot of areas that point towards Oswald's guilt. Add them ALL up and you have a compelling case for guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Who cares what you think???

Here's Bugliosi's actual words:

Quote:Has the evidence in this case proved Oswald's guilt to the point where we know that there must be an innocent explanation, one that in no way disturbs the conclusions of Oswald's guilt, to whatever question a Warren Commission critic or conspiracy theorist has about the case? Yes, unquestionably so. In a very abbreviated and summary form, let's look at most of that evidence...

Even if you don't think that Bugliosi is providing proof of Oswald's guilt, Bugliosi certainly thought he was...

Patrick C Wrote:The case for Oswald's guilt is far stronger than the case for his innocence - by an order of magnitude.

Of course it is... the framers wouldn't have been very good at framing a patsy were it otherwise...
 

Patrick C Wrote:That you conspiracy campers here cannot see that is beyond comprehension - especially when you consider the depth of knowledge regarding the case that is evident.

What's truly funny is that it's constantly citations on our side of the fence... and speculations combined with lies on your side of the fence... And you really think that you're convincing people...
 

Patrick C Wrote:I just wonder about the mind set that allows such a belief and I must conclude that something must be seriously wrong within the psyche of individuals with considerable knowledge of the case, who cannot even entertain the possibility that Oswald could have acted alone. It is nothing short of staggering.

Yep... if only we'd stop relying on the evidence in this case, we could come over to your side...