...I disagree with your calculations based on invalid lineups and prejudicial witness selections
You can disagree all you want, but the calculation is correct. Should you continue to disagree, I'll provide a detailed explanation of why it
is correct, and I'll get some other people here to back me up.
I actually agree with two basic points you make here. First, that your so-called "less-than-perfect" lineups are indeed adequate to raise reasonable doubt.
No one would be expected to doubt that you do agree with that, so why bother to mention it?
But I still prefer to call them "tainted" lineups, or if I'm being generous..."far-from-perfect".
You are free to call them whatever you choose, but it's clear from your use of the word "tainted" that you are attempting to characterize the line-ups as deliberately unfair, thus implying the existence of a conspiracy, or at a minimum a rush to judgement. In fact, the line-ups were conducted following the normal procedures for the Dallas Police Department at that time.
And, I concur that it is not "proof of a vast government conspiracy". By itself, this point- or nearly any other single point raised - does not prove or disprove a conspiracy. A case being made either way does not rest upon isolating one detail from everything else that supports the case as a whole.
Yes, however, you have repeatedly manifested a lack of understanding of the burden of proof in a conspiracy case. As Jay has pointed out, because of the impossibility of proving that a conspiracy doesn't exist, we must assume the lack of a conspiracy and require proof that one
does exist. Therefore, as I have pointed out before, claiming that some of the evidence is ambiguous ("Oswald might have shot Tippit, or he might not have") does not help your case, except insofar as the claim may prevent one or more aspects of that case from being utterly destroyed. For example, incontrovertible evidence that Oswald
did shoot Tippit would clearly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was somehow involved in Kennedy's assassination, which would destroy your claim that Oswald wasn't involved.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
Additionally, some of the other men in the line-ups were prisoners, and most or all of them did bear some resemblance to Oswald in build, height, and age.
Sources?
|
Well,
turbonium, the original source is the Warren report; however, this is discussed in the same
article from which you took the out-of-context quote that suggested the Davis sisters lied about not having seen Oswald on television before the line-up. Yet again, it appears that you didn't read one of your own sources carefully, but merely skimmed it for factoids with which you might attempt to bolster your case. In other words, you use factoids "the way a drunk uses lamp posts--for support, rather than illumination." (attributed to writer Andrew Lang)
Finally, I renew my request that you cease arguing peripheral points until you have addressed my earlier questions, starting with the issue of why anyone should take you or your "rational analysis" seriously.
[edit: typos]