[Ben Holmes]

(10-25-2016, 01:59 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  You state that

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.

WRONG - that is not what Bugliosi is saying.

He is saying that on Friday 22 Nov Oswald conducted himself in some instances that was not typical of him. When these instances are associated together, they help build a case for Oswald's guilt.

Bugliosi certainly knew that the earliest evidence was that Oswald read the newspaper. YOU know that the earliest evidence was that Oswald was doing exactly what he routinely did - read the newspaper.

Yet you excuse Bugliosi - and pretend that someone not following a routine so precisely is evidence of guilt.

Once again - I'm going to ask you ... and I know that you'll evade answering... but since when does something (an "instance") that doesn't show guilt... suddenly show guilt when added to other things that LIKEWISE SHOW NO GUILT?

There's absolutely NO WARRENT WHATSOEVER to point to someone not reading a newpaper on a single day, AND BASED ON ONLY A SINGLE WITNESS - as being guilty of anything at all...

Not even failing to read the newspaper...