KSM Conspiracy Charges Analyzed and Debunked

KSM will never clear his name and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. OJ was declared Not Guilty, do you think that the public at large thinks that he didn't kill Nicole and Goldman?
 
Sam.I.Am said:
KSM will never clear his name and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. OJ was declared Not Guilty, do you think that the public at large thinks that he didn't kill Nicole and Goldman?
Click to expand...

OJ Simpson was innocent, but you're right, he has not cleared his name yet.
 
DGM said:
Why are you dodging my question? How do you know what the prosecution intends to use for evidence?
Click to expand...

It is based on the alleged overt acts. The government needs evidence for them, you know.
 
Galileo said:
It is based on the alleged overt acts. The government needs evidence for them, you know.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said, is it? Should I take this fall back as an admission that you don't know what they intend to use and your article is not actually based on what they intend to use?
 
DGM said:
That's not what you said, is it? Should I take this fall back as an admission that you don't know what they intend to use and your article is not actually based on what they intend to use?
Click to expand...

They intend to use evidence that they believe will support the 169 alleged overt acts. I don't see any alleged overt acts that relies on the hard drive. And as I said before, I don't think the judge will admit the hard drive.

I have asked you which alleged overt act you think the hard drive might relate to. I assume you haven't read the article, otherwise you would answer.
 
Galileo said:
OJ Simpson was innocent, but you're right, he has not cleared his name yet.
Click to expand...

No he was declared "Not guilty", meaning that the prosecution failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. Anyone else who wasn't sequestered and followed the trial saw that his dream team of lawyers pulled a lot of fast ones to get a lot of damning evidence thrown out. Several of the jurors came out a few weeks after the trial and said that if they had heard what everyone else had heard said that they would've voted for a guilty verdict instead. He bought himself out of prison.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
No he was declared "Not guilty", meaning that the prosecution failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. Anyone else who wasn't sequestered and followed the trial saw that his dream team of lawyers pulled a lot of fast ones to get a lot of damning evidence thrown out. Several of the jurors came out a few weeks after the trial and said that if they had heard what everyone else had heard said that they would've voted for a guilty verdict instead. He bought himself out of prison.
Click to expand...

No, the evidence shows he was innocent of the charges, as the jury confirmed.

Are you "not guilty" as well?
 
Mmmm. Government cheese... Think that they will throw in some grape drank?
 
Galileo said:
They intend to use evidence that they believe will support the 169 alleged overt acts. I don't see any alleged overt acts that relies on the hard drive. And as I said before, I don't think the judge will admit the hard drive.

I have asked you which alleged overt act you think the hard drive might relate to. I assume you haven't read the article, otherwise you would answer.
Click to expand...
I don't give a crap about the "hard drive". I asked you how you know what the (civilian) prosecutors intend to use for evidence. Do I need to quote again what you said?

I'll do it anyway

My article only addresses evidence the prosecution intends to use in court.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I don't give a crap about the "hard drive". I asked you how you know what the (civilian) prosecutors intend to use for evidence. Do I need to quote again what you said?

I'll do it anyway
Click to expand...

Even if some of the alleged overt acts are true, that doesn't prove KSM is guilty. I admit some may be true. So if I admitted some may be true, then the evidence for them doesn't matter.

You need to tell me which alleged overt act you are talking about.
 
Galileo said:
Even if some of the alleged overt acts are true, that doesn't prove KSM is guilty. I admit some may be true. So if I admitted some may be true, then the evidence for them doesn't matter.

You need to tell me which alleged overt act you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You said:


"My article only addresses evidence the prosecution intends to use in court."

How do you know what they intend to use for evidence?
 
DGM said:
You said:


"My article only addresses evidence the prosecution intends to use in court."

How do you know what they intend to use for evidence?
Click to expand...

evidence for which alleged overt act? The potential differs for each one.
 
DGM said:
This shouldn't be this hard. :rolleyes:



You said:



How do you know what they intend to use for evidence?
Click to expand...

It differs for each alleged overt act. Which one are you talking about?

You think KSM is guilty, so whatever evidence that is based on could be a place to start.
 
Galileo said:
OJ Simpson was innocent, but you're right, he has not cleared his name yet.
Click to expand...
OJ Simpson was innocent in approximately the same sense that Rolf Lindgren was sane.

The jury decided the evidence against Simpson's innocence was not so overwhelming as to remove all reasonable doubt.

Another jury decided the evidence against Lindgren's sanity was not so overwhelming as to excuse his driving while intoxicated.
 
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd suggest that Rolf's behavior in this thread is merely laying the groundwork for a future insanity plea.
 
Gali,

Start from the beginning. How do you know what the prosecution intends to use for the overt acts number 1-169?

I will take them in numerical order please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom