Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 12:47:00 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?
Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< bullshit >
No, I'm not looking for the defintions of the words separately.
I'm looking for the defintition of the PHRASE "historically guilty".
I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE.
If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer your question.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:33:58 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote: < bullshit >
No, I'm not looking for the defintions of the words separately.
I'm looking for the defintition of the PHRASE "historically guilty".
I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE.Whether you want to answer the question is one thing, but I can find your logical fallacy right here: Argumentum ad Dictionariam.
If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer your question.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium
We all know what "historically" is, and we all know what "guilty" is. We all combine words to get ideas across, whether the specific combination of words has a dictionary definition or not.
And aren't you conceding the point at your own website? Didn't you write this?
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:18:37 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:33:58 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< bullshit >
No, I'm not looking for the defintions of the words separately.
I'm looking for the defintition of the PHRASE "historically guilty".
I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE.Whether you want to answer the question is one thing, but I can find your logical fallacy right here: Argumentum ad Dictionariam.
If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer your question.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium
We all know what "historically" is, and we all know what "guilty" is. We all combine words to get ideas across, whether the specific combination of words has a dictionary definition or not.
And aren't you conceding the point at your own website? Didn't you write this?
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
History and the MSM have accepted Oswald's guilt because they would look like idiots if they denied it given the wealth of
evidence of his guilt.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:18:37 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:33:58 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< bullshit >
No, I'm not looking for the defintions of the words separately.
I'm looking for the defintition of the PHRASE "historically guilty".
I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE.Whether you want to answer the question is one thing, but I can find your logical fallacy right here: Argumentum ad Dictionariam.
If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer your question.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium
We all know what "historically" is, and we all know what "guilty" is. We all combine words to get ideas across, whether the specific combination of words has a dictionary definition or not.
And aren't you conceding the point at your own website? Didn't you write this?
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
History and the MSM have accepted Oswald's guilt because they would look like idiots if they denied it given the wealth ofI'm giving him a lay-up here and he can't even score the point.
evidence of his guilt.
This is about the point in the conversation where Giltardo elects to bail out.
I'm giving him a lay-up here and he can't even score the point.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:23:03 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
This is about the point in the conversation where Giltardo elects to bail out.If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer the question.
PERIOD.
You finally said something I can agree with. You can't answer questions. PERIOD.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:57:14 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
I'm giving him a lay-up here and he can't even score the point.
You make up a phrase, then you want me to tell you if its true.
ROFLMAO
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:27:21 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
You finally said something I can agree with. You can't answer questions. PERIOD.FINAL TOTALS FOR QUESTIONS 1-40
CORBETT --- 55 responses, 3 correct answers, 5.5 % score, grade F
Corbett couldn't answer 37 of the 40 questions --- that's 92.5 % !!!!!
It's all here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uh6y9B38wYw/m/F7Jospt8BgAJ
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may."Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.
The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that evidence was never challenged in court.
But I challenege it on my site:
www.gil-jesus.com
Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.
That's what they concluded.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 12:47:00 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may."Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.
The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that evidence was never challenged in court.
But I challenege it on my site:
www.gil-jesus.com
Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.
That's what they concluded.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:07:16 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 12:47:00 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Did LHO actually fire the wounding bullets? It's the *same* question as, "Did OJ *actually* kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, regardless of the criminal trials outcome orIs Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.
"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"
Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating Lincoln?
And you wrote that history will judge Oswald as JFK's killer. True?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 2:07:26 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating Lincoln?Did witnesses see him perform the act ?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 2:07:26 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating Lincoln?Did witnesses see him perform the act ?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 12:51:54 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:07:16 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 12:47:00 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
It is ? Since when ? Was Simpson tried ?Did LHO actually fire the wounding bullets? It's the *same* question as, "Did OJ *actually* kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, regardless of the criminal trials outcome orIs Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.
"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"Was Hitler guaranteed rights under the US Constitution ?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:57:14 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
I'm giving him a lay-up here and he can't even score the point.You make up a phrase, then you want me to tell you if its true.
ROFLMAO
What did you mean when you wrote that history and the mainstream media will always regard Oswald as JFK's assassin? You wrote it at your website.
Isn't that the same as "historically guilty," which you're giving me a hard time about?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 2:49:15 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
What did you mean when you wrote that history and the mainstream media will always regard Oswald as JFK's assassin? You wrote it at your website.
Isn't that the same as "historically guilty," which you're giving me a hard time about?No, it's not. You didn't tell the whole story.
From my website:
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the ACCUSED assassin."
It's a comparison between the misidentification of Oswald as the assassin and the technically correct label of ACCUSED assassin.
It says nothing about "historically guilty".
Stupid.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 2:49:15 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
What did you mean when you wrote that history and the mainstream media will always regard Oswald as JFK's assassin? You wrote it at your website.
Isn't that the same as "historically guilty," which you're giving me a hard time about?No, it's not. You didn't tell the whole story.
From my website:
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the ACCUSED assassin."
It's a comparison between the misidentification of Oswald as the assassin and the technically correct label of ACCUSED assassin.
It says nothing about "historically guilty".
Stupid.
Here's your answer:
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 5:17:16 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Here's your answer:
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.My website has been changed to eliminate any misunderstanding by cementheads like you who can't comprehend what they're reading.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always misidentify Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
I never used the term "historically guilty". That's YOUR creation.
A creation that YOU can't prove is even a real phrase. But a couple of words you put together.
I can put words together to describe something as well, like "Chuck Schuylerly stupid" and it would make more sense to more people than your bullshit.
And the fact that you've been proven to be a liar and a coward in the past should be no surprise to anyone when you try to put words into people's mouths.The pot and the kettle syndrome.
YOU'RE A LOSER, CHUCK. You prove it every day.
And the world knows it.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Here's your answer:
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.My website has been changed to eliminate any misunderstanding by cementheads like you who can't comprehend what they're reading.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always misidentify Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
I never used the term "historically guilty". That's YOUR creation.
A creation that YOU can't prove is even a real phrase. But a couple of words you put together.
I can put words together to describe something as well, like "Chuck Schuylerly stupid" and it would make more sense to more people than your bullshit.
And the fact that you've been proven to be a liar and a coward in the past should be no surprise to anyone when you try to put words into people's mouths.
YOU'RE A LOSER, CHUCK. You prove it every day.
And the world knows it.
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 7:36:03 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 5:17:16 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Here's your answer:
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.My website has been changed to eliminate any misunderstanding by cementheads like you who can't comprehend what they're reading.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always misidentify Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
I never used the term "historically guilty". That's YOUR creation.
A creation that YOU can't prove is even a real phrase. But a couple of words you put together.
I can put words together to describe something as well, like "Chuck Schuylerly stupid" and it would make more sense to more people than your bullshit.
Yes, very strange. Like being called a sissy by Dylan Mulvaney.And the fact that you've been proven to be a liar and a coward in the past should be no surprise to anyone when you try to put words into people's mouths.The pot and the kettle syndrome.
YOU'RE A LOSER, CHUCK. You prove it every day.
And the world knows it.
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 5:17:16 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Here's your answer:
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.My website has been changed to eliminate any misunderstanding by cementheads like you who can't comprehend what they're reading.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always misidentify Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
I never used the term "historically guilty". That's YOUR creation.
A creation that YOU can't prove is even a real phrase. But a couple of words you put together.
I can put words together to describe something as well, like "Chuck Schuylerly stupid" and it would make more sense to more people than your bullshit.
And the fact that you've been proven to be a liar and a coward in the past should be no surprise to anyone when you try to put words into people's mouths.The pot and the kettle syndrome.
YOU'RE A LOSER, CHUCK. You prove it every day.
And the world knows it.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may."Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.
The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that evidence was never challenged in court.
But I challenege it on my site:
www.gil-jesus.com
Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.
That's what they concluded.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:59:51 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may."Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
What did you mean by that?
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?
Is that your final answer?
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:19:27 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:59:51 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may."Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
What did you mean by that?
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.
Is that your final answer?That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.
out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person accused of a crime due process before
depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,
liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor presumption of innocence.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 12:51:54 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:07:16 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 12:47:00 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
It is ? Since when ? Was Simpson tried ?Did LHO actually fire the wounding bullets? It's the *same* question as, "Did OJ *actually* kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, regardless of the criminal trials outcome orIs Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.
"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"Was Hitler guaranteed rights under the US Constitution ?
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:36:20 AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:perjury if later unassailable evidence of guilt comes out even though the person cannot actually be retried for guilt or innocence in. See the Mel Ignatow case:
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:19:27 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:59:51 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may."Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
What did you mean by that?
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.
And at *ITS* best, it is just that. A LEGAL PRESUMPTION! Indeed it has *nothing* do with the actual facts of guilt or innocence. In fact even if someone if *found* innocent, they can later be charged and found guilty an be punished for committingIs that your final answer?That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.
out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person accused of a crime due process before
depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,
liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor presumption of innocence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:56:39 AM UTC-5, BT George wrote:perjury if later unassailable evidence of guilt comes out even though the person cannot actually be retried for guilt or innocence in. See the Mel Ignatow case:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:36:20 AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:19:27 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:59:51 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may."Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
What did you mean by that?
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.
And at *ITS* best, it is just that. A LEGAL PRESUMPTION! Indeed it has *nothing* do with the actual facts of guilt or innocence. In fact even if someone if *found* innocent, they can later be charged and found guilty an be punished for committingIs that your final answer?That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.
out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person accused of a crime due process before
depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,
liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor presumption of innocence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_IgnatowThen we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people. Later, OJ faced a wrongful
death lawsuit. That jury decided by the preponderance of evidence that it was more likely than not that he had caused the
deaths of those same two people. So what should we conclude from those two verdicts?
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 9:21:11 AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:perjury if later unassailable evidence of guilt comes out even though the person cannot actually be retried for guilt or innocence in. See the Mel Ignatow case:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:56:39 AM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:36:20 AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:19:27 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:59:51 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may."Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
What did you mean by that?
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.
And at *ITS* best, it is just that. A LEGAL PRESUMPTION! Indeed it has *nothing* do with the actual facts of guilt or innocence. In fact even if someone if *found* innocent, they can later be charged and found guilty an be punished for committingIs that your final answer?That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.
out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person accused of a crime due process before
depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,
liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor presumption of innocence.
Well I personally conclude the first jury was determined to let him off, pretty much no matter what!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_IgnatowThen we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people. Later, OJ faced a wrongful
death lawsuit. That jury decided by the preponderance of evidence that it was more likely than not that he had caused the
deaths of those same two people. So what should we conclude from those two verdicts?
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:19:27 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:59:51 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may."Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
What did you mean by that?
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.
Is that your final answer?That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.
out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person accused of a crime due process before
depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,
liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor presumption of innocence.
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?
That has been explained to Giltardo many times.
Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people. Later, OJ faced a wrongful
death lawsuit. That jury decided by the preponderance of evidence that it was more likely than not that he had caused the
deaths of those same two people. So what should we conclude from those two verdicts?
Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:21:11?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people.
Another one of Corbett's lies. Verdicts don't include the jury's review of the prosecution's case or WHY the jury came to the decision that it did.
Verdicts only declare the defendant guilty or not guilty.
In keeping with that, this verdict said no such thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rurKd569xRw
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:21:11 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said theAnother one of Corbett's lies. Verdicts don't include the jury's review of the prosecution's case or WHY the jury came to the decision that it did.
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people.
Verdicts only declare the defendant guilty or not guilty.
In keeping with that, this verdict said no such thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rurKd569xRw
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 12:47:20?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:21:11?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said theAnother one of Corbett's lies. Verdicts don't include the jury's review of the prosecution's case or WHY the jury came to the decision that it did.
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people.
Verdicts only declare the defendant guilty or not guilty.
If ...
In keeping with that, this verdict said no such thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rurKd569xRw
The verdict only indicates ...
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:33:58?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< bullshit >
No, I'm not looking for the defintions of the words separately.
I'm looking for the defintition of the PHRASE "historically guilty".
I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE.
If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer your question.
Whether you want to answer the question is one thing, but I can find ....
This is about...
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:25:28?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:57:14?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
I'm giving him a lay-up here and he can't even score the point.
You make up a phrase, then you want me to tell you if its true.
ROFLMAO
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 5:02:44?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 2:49:15?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
What did you mean when you wrote that history and the mainstream media will always regard Oswald as JFK's assassin? You wrote it at your website.No, it's not. You didn't tell the whole story.
Isn't that the same as "historically guilty," which you're giving me a hard time about?
From my website:
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the ACCUSED assassin."
It's a comparison between the misidentification of Oswald as the assassin and the technically correct label of ACCUSED assassin.
It says nothing about "historically guilty".
Stupid.
So you think...
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:59:51?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may."Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.
The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that evidence was never challenged in court.
But I challenege it on my site:
www.gil-jesus.com
Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.
That's what they concluded.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:59:51?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may."Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
No he isn't ...
They were looking for an excuse to exonerate him and the prosecution handed it to them on a silver platter when they had
OJ try on the gloves. The never considered that the leather gloves could have shrunk in the year between the murder and the
trial. Leather will due that when it gets soaked and then is allowed to dry out. A good attorney is never surprised by anything
that is revealed in court.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:24:08?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:23:03?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
This is about the point in the conversation where Giltardo elects to bail out.If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer the question.
PERIOD.
You finally said something I can agree with. You can't answer questions. PERIOD.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 1:39:15?PM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 2:07:26?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating Lincoln?Did witnesses see him perform the act ?
What did you mean ...
The US Constitution does not grant rights. Rights are unalienable.
I'm giving him ...
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:02:44?PM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 2:49:15?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
What did you mean when you wrote that history and the mainstream media will always regard Oswald as JFK's assassin? You wrote it at your website.No, it's not. You didn't tell the whole story.
Isn't that the same as "historically guilty," which you're giving me a hard time about?
From my website:
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the ACCUSED assassin."
It's a comparison between the misidentification of Oswald as the assassin and the technically correct label of ACCUSED assassin.
It says nothing about "historically guilty".
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.
"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.
The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that evidence was never challenged in court.
But I challenege it on my site:
www.gil-jesus.com
Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.
That's what they concluded.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 2:39:15?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 2:07:26?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating Lincoln?Did witnesses see him perform the act ?
You continue to show your preference for asking questions over giving answers.
History and the MSM have accepted Oswald's guilt....
It's the first time I ever got graded ...
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 5:17:16?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:49:06?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
My website has been changed to eliminate any misunderstanding by cementheads like you who can't comprehend what they're reading.
Here's your answer:
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always misidentify Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
I never used the term "historically guilty". That's YOUR creation.
A creation that YOU can't prove is even a real phrase. But a couple of words you put together.
I can put words together to describe something as well, like "Chuck Schuylerly stupid" and it would make more sense to more people than your bullshit.
And the fact that you've been proven to be a liar and a coward in the past should be no surprise to anyone when you try to put words into people's mouths.
YOU'RE A LOSER, CHUCK. You prove it every day.
And the world knows it.
Great analogy.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 119:54:07 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,422 |