[Ben Holmes]

(03-23-2017, 07:08 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Prints from an unidentified nonemployee cannot be considered in conjunction with the other several pieces of evidence that DO indicate Oswald's guilt. ONLY Oswald is connected to OTHER kinds of evidence in the window - that pesky thing called critical mass again...

Yet you can't even name who left these prints! How do you know what evidence might be against him?!

For example, should it appear that the one who left the prints was James Alek Hidell - you'd instantly be in hot water...

But this tactic was favored by Bugliosi - no evidence by itself meant anything, but pile enough speculation on top of speculation, and you can manage to make Saint Teresa of Calcutta look criminal.

Hollywood - when are you going to deal with the rest of the refutations?

Surely you aren't going to defend Bugliosi on a single refutation, then leave???