In another thread, I posed this simple question to Gil:
"In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?"
So far, Gil has avoided answering it. I wonder why. Actually, I don't wonder.
I'm pretty sure I know why. It's a pick your poison question for Gil. If he says
we should limit ourselves to just evidence that would be admissible in court,
he would be invalidating most of the arguments he presents, including recently videos of unsworn witness statements. Those would be inadmissible. On the other hand, if he says we should weigh all available information, it invalidates his argument that much of the evidence against Oswald would
have been inadmissible. So Gil did what Gil usually does when faced with
the tough questions. He bailed out of the thread.
Gil wants to employ double standards. He wants to invalidate any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt if it doesn't conform to Gil's interpretation of what
would be admissible in a criminal trial. But he wants to be able to consider anything he can scrounge up to support his narrative without regard for whether or not it would be admissible. Gil doesn't want to play by the rules he imposes on others.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:33:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
In another thread, I posed this simple question to Gil:The moron who refuses to answer ANYTHING I post is now whining that
someone is ignoring him???
How sad!
In another thread, I posed this simple question to Gil:
In another thread, I posed this simple question to Gil:
"In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?"
So far, Gil has avoided answering it. I wonder why.
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 6:33:17 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread, I posed this simple question to Gil:
"In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available information or should we limit ourselves just to what we
believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?"
So far, Gil has avoided answering it. I wonder why.Because he never saw it.
I don't hang around this newsgroup all day like you do.
I have a life.
I believe ALL information should be released to the public so it can be examined by researchers.
But we should also be aware that the Warren Commission's purpose was to present to the public a case that was supposed to be based on evidence
that was "such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial". ( FBI file # 62-209060, Sec. 18, pg. 29 )
Under those circumstances, a trial becomes the standard by which the evidence must be weighed.
We should also be aware that the Commission failed to do that, that it allowed evidence that would have never been allowed at trial.
All I'm doing is point this fact out.
That you don't like it is no concern of mine.
As my Dad's buddy used to tell his kids, "GET OVER IT".
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 6:33:17 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread, I posed this simple question to Gil:
"In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available information or should we limit ourselves just to what we
believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?"
So far, Gil has avoided answering it. I wonder why.Because he never saw it.
I don't hang around this newsgroup all day like you do.
I have a life.
I believe ALL information should be released to the public so it can be examined by researchers.
But we should also be aware that the Warren Commission's purpose was to present to the public a case that was supposed to be based on evidence
that was "such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial". ( FBI file # 62-209060, Sec. 18, pg. 29 )
Under those circumstances, a trial becomes the standard by which the evidence must be weighed.
We should also be aware that the Commission failed to do that, that it allowed evidence that would have never been allowed at trial.
All I'm doing is point this fact out.
That you don't like it is no concern of mine.
As my Dad's buddy used to tell his kids, "GET OVER IT".
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 6:33:17?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread, I posed this simple question to Gil:
"In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination >> weigh all available information or should we limit ourselves just to what we >> believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?"
So far, Gil has avoided answering it. I wonder why. Actually, I don't wonder.
I'm pretty sure I know why. It's a pick your poison question for Gil. If he says
we should limit ourselves to just evidence that would be admissible in court,
he would be invalidating most of the arguments he presents, including
recently videos of unsworn witness statements. Those would be inadmissible. >> On the other hand, if he says we should weigh all available information, it >> invalidates his argument that much of the evidence against Oswald would
have been inadmissible. So Gil did what Gil usually does when faced with
the tough questions. He bailed out of the thread.
Gil wants to employ double standards. He wants to invalidate any and all
evidence of Oswald's guilt if it doesn't conform to Gil's interpretation of what
would be admissible in a criminal trial. But he wants to be able to consider >> anything he can scrounge up to support his narrative without regard for
whether or not it would be admissible. Gil doesn't want to play by the rules >> he imposes on others.
Nothing can be learned from Gil`s posts.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 115:29:17 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,075 |