On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:39:31 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 4:06:14 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 4:25:09 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
...Giltardo has argued that we can't say Oswald was the assassin because he
was never convicted.
You can say whatever you want to say, but the accurate description of Oswald was that he was the ACCUSED assassin of President Kennedy.
You were previously proclaiming he was *presumed innocent* because he was never convicted:
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
Amendments to the US Constitution.”
There's a difference between an ACCUSED assassin and a CONVICTED assassin.
You cannot convict a dead man, because there’s no way you can punish him. Dead men have no rights. However, we can reach a reasoned historical judgment on his guilt or innocence.
The reason why you can't see that is because you're stupid.
Ad hominem.
It is a fact that no one has ever been convicted of assassination JFK. So should we conclude that nobody assassinated JFK?
Another example of your failed reasoning.
How do you get from a homicide without a conviction to a homicide that never occurred ?
No, he’s making the point that yes, Kennedy was killed by gunfire, so somebody killed Kennedy. And since the evidence points to Oswald, it’s reasonable to conclude Oswald is guilty.
The other conclusion is what your argument points to, since nobody was convicted of killing Kennedy, then everyone is presumed innocent of killing Kennedy (like you claim Oswald is entitled to that presumption), therefore Kennedy was not killed.
That’s *your* argument extended to its logical conclusion.
What kind of reasoning is that ?
Are you suggesting that unsolved murders never occurred ?
That’s what your presumed innocent unless convicted in court reduces to.
Is there something wrong with you ?
Are you insane ?
You disagree with your argument extended to it's logical conclusion? Perhaps you might want to therefore rethink your argument.
It is safe to say that nobody will ever be convicted in the assassination of JFK and the murder of J.D. Tippit. Since that is
never going to happen, it makes one wonder what Gil's objective is. It seems clear he has no interest in determining who
the killer(s) were. It seems his sole purpose is to unsolve the crimes.
If the Lincoln assassination were treated historically the way Gil wants the Kennedy assassination treated, you and I would
have never been taught in schools that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln. We would have been told he was accused
but never proven to be Lincoln's assassin. We would be much less informed about the event than we actually were. Despite
the lack of a criminal prosecution and conviction of Booth, we were taught correctly and emphatically that Booth was the
assassin, no ifs, ands, or buts. I would wager that most if not all history textbooks at all levels of our education system identify
Oswald as the assassin just as certainly. They will state that there is a widespread belief that he did not act alone, as
they should, but they will not exonerate him of the crime. That is the factual account of JFK's assassination.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)