We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they committed while living.
In another thread, Hank brought up several mass
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they committed mass murder?
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:55:03 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without aI never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.
It all depends on the circumstances.
In another thread, Hank brought up several massLike I said, it all depends on the circumstances.
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they committed mass murder?
Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene of the crime ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were they armed at the time they were killed ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as the shooter ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.
And you love to compare apples to oranges.
You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING in common with this case.
"Yeah, but what about...."
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:55:03 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without aI never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.
It all depends on the circumstances.
In another thread, Hank brought up several massLike I said, it all depends on the circumstances.
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they committed mass murder?
Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene of the crime ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were they armed at the time they were killed ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as the shooter ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.
And you love to compare apples to oranges.
You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING in common with this case.
"Yeah, but what about...."
SMH
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:57:22 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:55:03 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:Oh, so now you are qualifying it. You're willing to accept that if there is sufficient evidence of a dead person's guilt, you are
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without aI never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.
It all depends on the circumstances.
In another thread, Hank brought up several massLike I said, it all depends on the circumstances.
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they committed mass murder?
willing to accept that they are guilty. We don't have to call them accused murderers. I would call this progress.
Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene of the crime ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were they armed at the time they were killed ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as the shooter ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were they the owners of two different murder weapons, and did they bring a package to one crime scene that was big
enough to hold one of the murder weapons, and was their palmprint on one of the murder weapons, and were there
fibers on one of the murder weapons that matched the shirt they were wearing, and were their fingerprints at the location
where several witnesses saw a gunman, and were shells found at the scene of bother murders that could only have been
fired by the weapons they owned, and were bullets recovered from one of the shootings that could only have been fired by
one of the weapons they owned, and were there eyewitne Hosses as the scene of both murders who identified them as the
shooter?
Then chance are they're guilty.
You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.Explain how under the above circumstances I outlined, Oswald could be innocent. IOW, present a scenario that would
And you love to compare apples to oranges.
produce the body of evidence we have in the murders of Kennedy and Tippit and we can compare that scenario to the one
which the WC gave us and decide which is the more credible scenario.
You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING in common with this case.
"Yeah, but what about...."
You want us to find crimes that have something in common with the JFK assassination. OK, how many case do we have in
which a US president was assassinated with a rifle? How many US presidents were assassinated while riding in a vehicle?
How many cases do we have in which a US president was assassinated with a gunshot to the back of the head. OK, we have
one to compare it with but only if you accept JFK was also shot in the back of the head.
Perhaps you could tells us about some cases that have things in common with the JFK assassination.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:57:22 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:55:03 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:Oh, so now you are qualifying it. You're willing to accept that if there is sufficient evidence of a dead person's guilt, you are
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without aI never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.
It all depends on the circumstances.
In another thread, Hank brought up several massLike I said, it all depends on the circumstances.
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they committed mass murder?
willing to accept that they are guilty. We don't have to call them accused murderers. I would call this progress.
Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene of the crime ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were they armed at the time they were killed ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as the shooter ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were they the owners of two different murder weapons, and did they bring a package to one crime scene that was big
enough to hold one of the murder weapons, and was their palmprint on one of the murder weapons, and were there
fibers on one of the murder weapons that matched the shirt they were wearing, and were their fingerprints at the location
where several witnesses saw a gunman, and were shells found at the scene of bother murders that could only have been
fired by the weapons they owned, and were bullets recovered from one of the shootings that could only have been fired by
one of the weapons they owned, and were there eyewitne Hosses as the scene of both murders who identified them as the
shooter?
Then chance are they're guilty.
You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.Explain how under the above circumstances I outlined, Oswald could be innocent.
And you love to compare apples to oranges.
IOW, present a scenario that would
produce the body of evidence we have in the murders of Kennedy and Tippit and we can compare that scenario to the one
which the WC gave us and decide which is the more credible scenario.
You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING in common with this case.
"Yeah, but what about...."
You want us to find crimes that have something in common with the JFK assassination. OK, how many case do we have in
which a US president was assassinated with a rifle?
How many US presidents were assassinated while riding in a vehicle?
How many cases do we have in which a US president was assassinated with a gunshot to the back of the head. OK, we have
one to compare it with but only if you accept JFK was also shot in the back of the head.
Perhaps you could tells us about some cases that have things in common with the JFK assassination.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:55:03 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without aI never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
criminal conviction, it is wrong [to] declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.
It all depends on the circumstances.
In another thread, Hank brought up several massLike I said, it all depends on the circumstances.
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they committed mass murder?
Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene of the crime ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were they armed at the time they were killed ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as the shooter ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.
And you love to compare apples to oranges.
You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING in common with this case.
"Yeah, but what about...."
SMH
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:57:22 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:Amendments to the US Constitution.”
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:55:03 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:You said exactly that on 11/17/23 here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJ “… 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
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without aI never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
criminal conviction, it is wrong [to] declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.
It all depends on the circumstances.
Amendments to the US Constitution.”You did not mention any special circumstances on the 17th:In another thread, Hank brought up several massLike I said, it all depends on the circumstances.
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they committed mass murder?
“… 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
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a >criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they >committed while living.
Giltardo...
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 108:58:31 |
Calls: | 6,662 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,209 |
Messages: | 5,335,710 |