If you imagine investigating the murder of President Kennedy is unimportant as a criminal matter or a a matter of history, you are wasting your time here.
Where did I state that I believe such a thing? I believe very much the contrary. I'm saying that's what appears to be common among JFK conspiracists -- that there is no interest among them to actually solve the crime.
As always, but no need to hold everyone back while you catch up.
No need for hostility. Simply state what the point was and the argument you believe supports it. By the strikethrough you apparently tried to draw some parallel, but since you opted for cleverness rather than clarity, I'm asking you to state the argument clearly.
What is your experience and expertise? Stop evading this very important question!
Tu quoque.
Why would you find that to be insufficient - you haven't explained why you find it unacceptable to accept a commonly held and widely understood methodology of discovering facts.
You're shifting the burden of proof. Commonly held and widely understood does not mean it is mandatory in this instance. There are plenty of other means of discovering facts, similarly widely understood and commonly practiced. Why, among all those, have you selected a legal standard of proof (and I assume you mean the reasonable doubt standard) to use outside a courtroom?
Yes, indeed. It is because of the possible consequences that law standards are so high. Why do you reject such a standard in a matter where it is a crime under investigation?
Because a crime under investigation follows different rules than a crime being tried in a court of law. The former rules are more lenient and directed toward a different end -- i.e., the synthesis of a number of plausible scenarios from the evidence. The purpose of the court trial is not to discover fact in general, but to discover fact relevant only to one particular defendant -- i.e., to test one scenario and that scenario
only.
The reason I question your choice of standard here is that you claim to want to investigate the murder of JFK, but you apply a standard of proof that is only useful for attempting to exonerate one suspect.
The burden of proof lies on the would-be prosecutors of Oswald.
The burden of proof for which standard of evidence is appropriate for discussing the facts of the Kennedy assassination belongs to the person proposing the standard. You're proposing the standard, therefore it's your burden to defend the choice. Turning it back on your critics to say "why not?" doesn't satisfy that burden.
You still haven't answered my questions. Stop evading.
And as I said, stop rewriting my arguments to suit what you want them to be. I'm not answering questions that follow only from stuff you just make up.
Where have I used these words 'improper' or 'irregular' - you seem to be addicted to trying to make it appear as if I've written things not found in any of my posts.
Weasel words. You've spent page after page telling us how Ball's examination of Markham was irregular, suspicious, or questionable. Pick whatever words or sentiment you want that expresses how you characterized the bottom of page 310. But don't suddenly pretend you never made any such argument unless it is to withdraw it.
I simply reproduced parts of Markham's testimony excised from your presentations which appear to indicate it took some effort to get her to say what was required of her.
But you insist that this "effort" is somehow salient (perhaps suspicious) in and of itself. You've suggested that Ball spoonfed her the "right" answer, and that she was poised to commit otherwise to the record but for his persistence. When I ask why the bottom of pg. 310 is salient and how you're able to know that this examination has the properties you attribute to it, you scramble to not have to answer.
I produced the strangely ignored part of her testimony and stated clearly and unequivocally how it appears. You seem to disagree, but on what basis is anyone's guess.
For the second time, not "strangely ignored" -- just placed in the proper context (i.e., the discussion at the top of pg. 311) that you seem to always leave out.
It's an inane question useless to the question under consideration. Why you waste your time on this is your business.
Because I made a claim to that effect and you challenged it -- twice. If you want to withdraw your challenge, be my guest. Otherwise cough up the evidence of the broad support JFK conspiracism has among relevant historians.
It's wholly irrelevant. Taking a vote among historians doesn't change matters of fact.
I didn't ask for a vote. I asked for evidence that your methods and conclusions are widely accepted among the relevant practitioners. It is important only that you bristled when I suggested they weren't. Withdraw your challenge, thereby admitting that JFK conspiracism is a fringe pursuit, and we'll be good to go. Otherwise supply the requested evidence and stop pretending the request is improper.
It's just silly to attack people for motives you ascribe to them, when there's a million dollars on the table for someone who can read minds are you appear to claim to do.
Link to the post where I claim to read minds. I noted that I observe a pattern among JFK conspiracists when arguing the point about standard of proof. You asked for evidence of that pattern and I gave you some. You tried to deflect it by saying it had nothing to with Oswald.
Now you've moved the goalposts - at first it was 'useless' to even try to eliminate suspects in a murder investigation, now it would be useful if after X amount of time another suspect is named.
No I haven't moved the goalposts. Rather you've finally abandoned the straw man you've been trying to foist. Now that you're finally playing on the same field as the rest of us, do you understand why I find it salient that in decades of investigation there has arisen no consensus whatsoever on any alternate suspects?
Do you now claim that among those who argue that Oswald was either part of a larger conspiracy or merely a patsy that none of them have tried to solve the crime and name other suspects?
If you honestly think that, then you are honestly mistaken.
Yet when I ask you to name the other suspects that have been developed, you tell me you can't, you won't, and to do so would be irresponsible speculation.
So make up your mind. Do you have other suspects or not?
and Virginia and Barbara Davis..Oswald shook the empties from his pistol while crossing their lawn.. William Scoggins saw Tippit fall, and watched Oswald run past. Domingo Benavides saw Tippit get shot, from 15 feet away. Ted Callaway saw Oswald running with the pistol, and called to Oswald. Identified him in the lineup that evening. Warren Reynolds watched Oswald leave the shooting scene. William Arthur Smith, B.M. Patterson, Jack R. Tatum saw Oswald leaving the scene.
