(48) Oswald lied about living at the place where the picture with the
rifle was taken.

This is, of course, hearsay. We don't KNOW what Oswald said during interrogations, because no record was ever kept. Nor did anyone first
admit to taking any notes - although some notes later showed up.

Without the ability to cross-examine Oswald, we don't KNOW what any
such denial means. How was the question worded? How EXACTLY did he
answer it? What did he mean by his answer?

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that he flat lied about
living at a prior address... how would that support the theory that
he's guilty of murder?

Was the murder committed AT that address?

Was there some connection with that address that would have offered
support to the prosecution?

Watch as David Von Pein ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to defend Bugliosi here,
and "Bud" absolutely refuses to answer any of the questions.

And of course, John Corbett long ago decided that he couldn't answer
my refutations - so he ran away... no longer wishing to be
embarrassed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:47:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

(48) Oswald lied about living at the place where the picture with the
rifle was taken.

This is, of course, hearsay. We don't KNOW what Oswald said during interrogations, because no record was ever kept. Nor did anyone first
admit to taking any notes - although some notes later showed up.

Precisely. Anything the police said he said would have been inadmissable in a trial.
They could have avoided that by transcribing or recording the interrogation sessions, but they didn't want it in the public record that
they continued to question Oswald after he had "lawyered up". And by not recording it, it allowed them to say Oswald said whatever.

Anything Marina said would have been inadmissable.
The entire Walker shooting would have been inadmissable.
What she said about the backyard photographs would have been inadmissable. Anything she said about the weapons would have been inadmissable.
All of her testimony would have been thrown out.

Any identifications of Oswald from the police lineups would have been thrown out.

Jurors would have been informed that much of the evidence in the case was never identified
by the people who found it.
That includes the rifle.
That includes the rifle shells.
That includes the Tippit shells.
That includes CE 399.

If the case went forward, jurors would have been informed that the prosecution failed to prove:

Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office.
Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963. Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
Oswald constructed the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
The "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
The rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
Oswald fired the rifle.
That the rifle was capable of committing the crime.
Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
That the handgun was ever shipped.
Oswald picked up the handgun at the REA Express office.
Oswald pulled the trigger and the handgun misfired in the Texas Theater.
The bullets that killed Officer Tippit came from the handgun in evidence. Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle.
CE 399 was the "stretcher bullet".
Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
That Oswald planned the assassination in advance.

The Commission's mandate was to present the evidence as "such that he would have been convicted at trial". ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 18, pg. 29 )
In order to do that required the Commission to follow rules of judicial process and they clearly deviated from that.

And I have no problem pointing that out.

Now, Lone Nutters, make your case against Oswald sans the evidence listed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:57:56 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:47:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

(48) Oswald lied about living at the place where the picture with the rifle was taken.

This is, of course, hearsay. We don't KNOW what Oswald said during interrogations, because no record was ever kept. Nor did anyone first admit to taking any notes - although some notes later showed up.

Precisely. Anything the police said he said would have been inadmissable in a trial.
They could have avoided that by transcribing or recording the interrogation sessions, but they didn't want it in the public record that
they continued to question Oswald after he had "lawyered up". And by not recording it, it allowed them to say Oswald said whatever.

Anything Marina said would have been inadmissable.

Which is no reason to ignore it in 2023, unless you are looking for excuses to exonerate Oswald.

The entire Walker shooting would have been inadmissable.

Completely unnecessary to proving Oswald shot and killed JFK and JDT.

What she said about the backyard photographs would have been inadmissable.

It wouldn't have been necessary to prove they were authentic. A photo analyst could have done
that. As Oswald's self appointed defense counselor, you should know that the court would not
allow you to simply declare the photos were fake. You would have to produce evidence that
they were. Got any? Didn't think so. Therefore there is no reason for use in 2023 to ignore these
photos as evidence Oswald owned the weapons he used to kill JFK and JDT.

Anything she said about the weapons would have been inadmissable.

Why does that matter in 2023? Why would someone interested in knowing the truth of the JFK
assassination ignore the things Marina said under oath? Oh, I forgot. You're Oswald's defense
counsel. You need excuses to ignore anything and everything that implicates your client.

All of her testimony would have been thrown out.

We don't have to throw it out in 2023.

Any identifications of Oswald from the police lineups would have been thrown out.

You've appointed yourself as Oswald's defense counselor. That empower you to decide what
would and would not have been thrown out. Do you have any real legal experts who have
offered the opinion that the lineups would have been inadmissible? Didn't think so.

Jurors would have been informed that much of the evidence in the case was never identified
by the people who found it.
That includes the rifle.
That includes the rifle shells.
That includes the Tippit shells.
That includes CE 399.

What jurors are there in 2023?

If the case went forward, jurors would have been informed that the prosecution failed to prove:

Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office.
Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963. Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
Oswald constructed the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
The "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
The rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
Oswald fired the rifle.
That the rifle was capable of committing the crime.
Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
That the handgun was ever shipped.
Oswald picked up the handgun at the REA Express office.
Oswald pulled the trigger and the handgun misfired in the Texas Theater.
The bullets that killed Officer Tippit came from the handgun in evidence. Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle.
CE 399 was the "stretcher bullet".
Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
That Oswald planned the assassination in advance.

Nice try, counselor. There's ample proof for all of these things. Had you actually been Oswald's defense counselor and argued these things to the jury and then they looked at the evidence
the prosecution provided, they would have seen you for the fool that you are. Just like we are
doing in 2023.

The Commission's mandate was to present the evidence as "such that he would have been convicted at trial". ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 18, pg. 29 )

The Katzenbach memo was not a mandate to the WC. You are making this up.

In order to do that required the Commission to follow rules of judicial process and they clearly deviated from that.

Bullshit. The Warren Commission was given the job of determining the facts surrounding the
assassination of JFK. They were not bound by judicial rules which are set up to safeguard the
rights of the accused.

The following is LBJ's Executive Order 11130 appointing the Commission and specifying their
duties:

November 29, 1963
Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, I hereby appoint a Commission to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the subsequent violent death
of the man charged with the assassination. The Commission shall consist of--

The Chief Justice of the United States, Chairman;

Senator Richard B. Russell;

Senator John Sherman Cooper;

Congressman Hale Boggs;

Congressman Gerald R. Ford;

The Honorable Allen W. Dulles;

The Honorable John J. McCloy.

The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by Federal or State authorities; to make such further investigation
as the Commission finds desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and conclusions.

The Commission is empowered to prescribe its own procedures and to employ such assistants as it deems necessary.

Necessary expenses of the Commission may be paid from the "Emergency Fund for the President."

All Executive departments and agencies are directed to furnish the Commission with such facilities, services, and cooperation as it may request from time to time.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON

THE WHITE HOUSE

November 29, 1963

Released November 30, 1963. Dated November 29, 1963.

Lyndon B. Johnson

Gil, notice the WC was given authority to establish their own procedures. They were not bound
by judicial rules because they were not conducting a criminal trial. There was no judge, jury,
prosecutor, nor defense counsel. It was a fact finding body. They were free to look at whatever
evidence they believed was probative. They were not bound by your notions of what was or was
not admissible evidence. It was all admissible and they had the freedom to decide what weight
to give to each piece of evidence. It makes no sense for somebody in 2023 to be arguing that
any of the evidence would be inadmissible. If we are interested in knowing the truth, and some
of us are, we should consider any and all evidence and make judgements as to its probative
value on a case-by-case basis.

And I have no problem pointing that out.

You are pointing out how silly your ideas are.

Now, Lone Nutters, make your case against Oswald sans the evidence listed.

We are not restricted by what some sel-f appointed wannabe defense lawyer says we may or
may not look at. We are free to look at it all and make reasonable judgements as to its
probative value. Any person who is truly interested in the truth of the JFK assassination should
be willing to look at any and all information that sheds light on it. A buffoon like yourself instead
seeks to invent excuses to ignore most of the evidence we have in this case because your stated
mission is not to seek the truth but to act as Oswald's defense counsel. You know all the evidence
is stacked against your client so you try to convince everyone not to consider that evidence.
It's not working.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:23:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:05:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:57:56?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:47:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

(48) Oswald lied about living at the place where the picture with the >>> rifle was taken.

This is, of course, hearsay. We don't KNOW what Oswald said during
interrogations, because no record was ever kept. Nor did anyone first >>> admit to taking any notes - although some notes later showed up.

Precisely. Anything the police said he said would have been inadmissable in a trial.
They could have avoided that by transcribing or recording the interrogation sessions, but they didn't want it in the public record that
they continued to question Oswald after he had "lawyered up". And by not recording it, it allowed them to say Oswald said whatever.

Anything Marina said would have been inadmissable.

Which is no reason to ignore it in 2023, unless you are looking for excuses to exonerate Oswald.

Not a refutation.

Explain how the trial Gil is conducting in his head can be "refuted".

Indeed, you simply didn't address it at all.

Sure he did. He pointed out there was no trial, and that trial standards are irrelevant.

The entire Walker shooting would have been inadmissable.

Completely unnecessary to proving Oswald shot and killed JFK and JDT.

Then the WC shouldn't have included it.

Why not?

But they did... proving YOU a
liar.

What she said about the backyard photographs would have been inadmissable.

It wouldn't have been necessary to prove they were authentic. A photo analyst could have done
that.

Then do it.

Why? Has anyone given any real support to the idea they were faked?

But you won't. You're a coward.

Anything she said about the weapons would have been inadmissable.

Why does that matter...

The truth matters.

All of her testimony would have been thrown out.

We don't have to ...

You can't live without it.

You hate the insight she gave about her murderous husbands activities.

Any identifications of Oswald from the police lineups would have been thrown out.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Jurors would have been informed that much of the evidence in the case was never identified
by the people who found it.
That includes the rifle.
That includes the rifle shells.
That includes the Tippit shells.
That includes CE 399.

If the case went forward, jurors would have been informed that the prosecution failed to prove:

Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office.
Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
Oswald constructed the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
The "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
The rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
Oswald fired the rifle.
That the rifle was capable of committing the crime.
Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
That the handgun was ever shipped.
Oswald picked up the handgun at the REA Express office.
Oswald pulled the trigger and the handgun misfired in the Texas Theater. >> The bullets that killed Officer Tippit came from the handgun in evidence. >> Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle.
CE 399 was the "stretcher bullet".
Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
That Oswald planned the assassination in advance.

Nice try...

So nice indeed, that you were flustered by the facts.

The Commission's mandate was to present the evidence as "such that he would have been convicted at trial". ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 18, pg. 29 )

Logical fallacy deleted.

In order to do that required the Commission to follow rules of judicial process and they clearly deviated from that.

Logical fallacy deleted.

And I have no problem pointing that out.

Now, Lone Nutters, make your case against Oswald sans the evidence listed.

We are not restricted...

And yet, you can't convince the American people.

Who cares what they think?

You lose.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:05:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:57:56?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:47:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

(48) Oswald lied about living at the place where the picture with the
rifle was taken.

This is, of course, hearsay. We don't KNOW what Oswald said during
interrogations, because no record was ever kept. Nor did anyone first
admit to taking any notes - although some notes later showed up.

Precisely. Anything the police said he said would have been inadmissable in a trial.
They could have avoided that by transcribing or recording the interrogation sessions, but they didn't want it in the public record that
they continued to question Oswald after he had "lawyered up". And by not recording it, it allowed them to say Oswald said whatever.

Anything Marina said would have been inadmissable.

Which is no reason to ignore it in 2023, unless you are looking for excuses to exonerate Oswald.

Not a refutation. Indeed, you simply didn't address it at all.

The entire Walker shooting would have been inadmissable.

Completely unnecessary to proving Oswald shot and killed JFK and JDT.

Then the WC shouldn't have included it. But they did... proving YOU a
liar.

What she said about the backyard photographs would have been inadmissable.

It wouldn't have been necessary to prove they were authentic. A photo analyst could have done
that.

Then do it.

But you won't. You're a coward.

Anything she said about the weapons would have been inadmissable.

Why does that matter...

The truth matters.

All of her testimony would have been thrown out.

We don't have to ...

You can't live without it.

Any identifications of Oswald from the police lineups would have been thrown out.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Jurors would have been informed that much of the evidence in the case was never identified
by the people who found it.
That includes the rifle.
That includes the rifle shells.
That includes the Tippit shells.
That includes CE 399.

If the case went forward, jurors would have been informed that the prosecution failed to prove:

Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office.
Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963. >> Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
Oswald constructed the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
The "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
The rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
Oswald fired the rifle.
That the rifle was capable of committing the crime.
Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
That the handgun was ever shipped.
Oswald picked up the handgun at the REA Express office.
Oswald pulled the trigger and the handgun misfired in the Texas Theater.
The bullets that killed Officer Tippit came from the handgun in evidence.
Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle.
CE 399 was the "stretcher bullet".
Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
That Oswald planned the assassination in advance.

Nice try...

So nice indeed, that you were flustered by the facts.

The Commission's mandate was to present the evidence as "such that he would have been convicted at trial". ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 18, pg. 29 )

Logical fallacy deleted.

In order to do that required the Commission to follow rules of judicial process and they clearly deviated from that.

Logical fallacy deleted.

And I have no problem pointing that out.

Now, Lone Nutters, make your case against Oswald sans the evidence listed.

We are not restricted...

And yet, you can't convince the American people.

You lose.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:59:28 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:23:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:05:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:57:56?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:47:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

(48) Oswald lied about living at the place where the picture with the >>> rifle was taken.

This is, of course, hearsay. We don't KNOW what Oswald said during
interrogations, because no record was ever kept. Nor did anyone first >>> admit to taking any notes - although some notes later showed up.

Precisely. Anything the police said he said would have been inadmissable in a trial.
They could have avoided that by transcribing or recording the interrogation sessions, but they didn't want it in the public record that
they continued to question Oswald after he had "lawyered up". And by not recording it, it allowed them to say Oswald said whatever.

Anything Marina said would have been inadmissable.

Which is no reason to ignore it in 2023, unless you are looking for excuses to exonerate Oswald.

Not a refutation.

Explain how the trial Gil is conducting in his head can be "refuted". >Indeed, you simply didn't address it at all.
Sure he did. He pointed out there was no trial, and that trial standards are irrelevant.

The entire Walker shooting would have been inadmissable.

Completely unnecessary to proving Oswald shot and killed JFK and JDT. Then the WC shouldn't have included it.

Why not?

But they did... proving YOU a
liar.

What she said about the backyard photographs would have been inadmissable.

It wouldn't have been necessary to prove they were authentic. A photo analyst could have done
that.

Then do it.

Why? Has anyone given any real support to the idea they were faked?

But you won't. You're a coward.

Anything she said about the weapons would have been inadmissable.

Why does that matter...

The truth matters.

All of her testimony would have been thrown out.

We don't have to ...

You can't live without it.

You hate the insight she gave about her murderous husbands activities.

Any identifications of Oswald from the police lineups would have been thrown out.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Jurors would have been informed that much of the evidence in the case was never identified
by the people who found it.
That includes the rifle.
That includes the rifle shells.
That includes the Tippit shells.
That includes CE 399.

If the case went forward, jurors would have been informed that the prosecution failed to prove:

Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office.
Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
Oswald constructed the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
The "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
The rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
Oswald fired the rifle.
That the rifle was capable of committing the crime.
Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
That the handgun was ever shipped.
Oswald picked up the handgun at the REA Express office.
Oswald pulled the trigger and the handgun misfired in the Texas Theater.
The bullets that killed Officer Tippit came from the handgun in evidence.
Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle. >> CE 399 was the "stretcher bullet".
Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
That Oswald planned the assassination in advance.

Nice try...

So nice indeed, that you were flustered by the facts.

The Commission's mandate was to present the evidence as "such that he would have been convicted at trial". ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 18, pg. 29 )

Logical fallacy deleted.

In order to do that required the Commission to follow rules of judicial process and they clearly deviated from that.

Logical fallacy deleted.

And I have no problem pointing that out.

Now, Lone Nutters, make your case against Oswald sans the evidence listed.

We are not restricted...

And yet, you can't convince the American people.

Who cares what they think?

About 1/3 of Americans believe aliens have visited the earth and up to 77% think it may have
happened. People choose to believe fantastic things because the truth is usually much more
boring. Who wants to believe JFK was taken out by some lowly paid unskilled laborer when it's
much more interesting to believe it was elements of our own government who resorted to
staging a coup d'etat?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 19:52:19 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

About 1/3 of Americans believe aliens have visited the earth and up to 77% think it may have
happened.

An argument by speculation...

People choose to believe fantastic things because the truth is usually much more
boring. Who wants to believe JFK was taken out by some lowly paid unskilled laborer when it's
much more interesting to believe it was elements of our own government who resorted to
staging a coup d'etat?

More speculation. None of which is supported by any citations at all.

So what we have is a moron sputtering...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:59:27 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:23:10?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:05:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:57:56?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:47:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

(48) Oswald lied about living at the place where the picture with the >>>>> rifle was taken.

This is, of course, hearsay. We don't KNOW what Oswald said during
interrogations, because no record was ever kept. Nor did anyone first >>>>> admit to taking any notes - although some notes later showed up.

Precisely. Anything the police said he said would have been inadmissable in a trial.
They could have avoided that by transcribing or recording the interrogation sessions, but they didn't want it in the public record that
they continued to question Oswald after he had "lawyered up". And by not recording it, it allowed them to say Oswald said whatever.

Anything Marina said would have been inadmissable.

Which is no reason to ignore it in 2023, unless you are looking for excuses to exonerate Oswald.

Not a refutation.

Logical fallacy deleted. If you want debate, Chickenshit, you're
going to have to do better than fallacies.

I'm simply ignoring logical fallacies.

Indeed, you simply didn't address it at all.

Logical fallacy deleted

The entire Walker shooting would have been inadmissable.

Completely unnecessary to proving Oswald shot and killed JFK and JDT.

Then the WC shouldn't have included it.

Nonsense deleted.

But they did... proving YOU a liar.

And Chickenshit had no defense.

What she said about the backyard photographs would have been inadmissable. >>>

It wouldn't have been necessary to prove they were authentic. A photo analyst could have done
that.

Then do it.

Why?

Because it's your burden.

Your claim, you need to support it.

But you won't. You're a coward.

Anything she said about the weapons would have been inadmissable.

Why does that matter...

The truth matters.

All of her testimony would have been thrown out.

We don't have to ...

You can't live without it.

Any identifications of Oswald from the police lineups would have been thrown out.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Jurors would have been informed that much of the evidence in the case was never identified
by the people who found it.
That includes the rifle.
That includes the rifle shells.
That includes the Tippit shells.
That includes CE 399.

If the case went forward, jurors would have been informed that the prosecution failed to prove:

Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office.
Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
Oswald constructed the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
The "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
The rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
Oswald fired the rifle.
That the rifle was capable of committing the crime.
Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
That the handgun was ever shipped.
Oswald picked up the handgun at the REA Express office.
Oswald pulled the trigger and the handgun misfired in the Texas Theater. >>>> The bullets that killed Officer Tippit came from the handgun in evidence. >>>> Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle.
CE 399 was the "stretcher bullet".
Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
That Oswald planned the assassination in advance.

Nice try...

So nice indeed, that you were flustered by the facts.

The Commission's mandate was to present the evidence as "such that he would have been convicted at trial". ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 18, pg. 29 )

Logical fallacy deleted.

In order to do that required the Commission to follow rules of judicial process and they clearly deviated from that.

Logical fallacy deleted.

And I have no problem pointing that out.

Now, Lone Nutters, make your case against Oswald sans the evidence listed. >>>

We are not restricted...

And yet, you can't convince the American people.

You lose.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)