From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:59:51 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:    
   > > Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or   
   interpret it as you may.   
   > "Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link   
   that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.    
   > A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because 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.    
      
   No he isn't because he's dead. Presumption of innocence is something afforded   
   to the accused by our legal system. The    
   accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence because the Constitution   
   prohibits from depriving the accused of life,   
   liberty, or property without due process. Until the government has met its   
   burden, the accused is presumed innocent. Dead   
   people have no rights that need to be protected. The dead have no life,   
   liberty, or property that they can be deprived of by   
   the government and are therefore not entitled to due process. Oswald is no   
   more entitled to a presumption of innocence   
   than John Wilkes Booth. This has all been explained to you numerous times in   
   the past but for some reason, it never sinks in.   
      
   > While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is   
   that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.    
      
   No, we KNOW he was the assassin because we know what the evidence of that is   
   and we have the ability to reason, which   
   is more than we can say for you.   
      
   > The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that   
   evidence was never challenged in court.    
      
   Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating   
   Lincoln?   
      
   > But I challenege it on my site:    
   > www.gil-jesus.com    
      
   Even Oswald deserves a better defense than what you have given him.    
   >    
   > Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald   
   killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.    
   > That's what they concluded.   
      
   They were right.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)