From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:57:22 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:55:03 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > > We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without   
   a    
   > > criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes   
   they    
   > > committed while living.   
   > I never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I   
   think.    
   > It all depends on the circumstances.   
   > > In another thread, Hank brought up several mass    
   > > shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out.   
   Since    
   > > we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they    
   > > committed mass murder?   
   > Like I said, it all depends on the circumstances.   
      
   Oh, so now you are qualifying it. You're willing to accept that if there is   
   sufficient evidence of a dead person's guilt, you are   
   willing to accept that they are guilty. We don't have to call them accused   
   murderers. I would call this progress.     
   >    
   > Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene   
   of the crime ?    
   > Then chances are they're guilty.    
   >    
   > Were they armed at the time they were killed ?    
   > Then chances are they're guilty.    
   >    
   > Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as   
   the shooter ?    
   > Then chances are they're guilty.    
   >    
   Were they the owners of two different murder weapons, and did they bring a   
   package to one crime scene that was big    
   enough to hold one of the murder weapons, and was their palmprint on one of   
   the murder weapons, and were there    
   fibers on one of the murder weapons that matched the shirt they were wearing,   
   and were their fingerprints at the location   
   where several witnesses saw a gunman, and were shells found at the scene of   
   bother murders that could only have been   
   fired by the weapons they owned, and were bullets recovered from one of the   
   shootings that could only have been fired by   
   one of the weapons they owned, and were there eyewitne Hosses as the scene of   
   both murders who identified them as the   
   shooter?   
   Then chance are they're guilty.   
      
   > You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.    
   > And you love to compare apples to oranges.    
      
   Explain how under the above circumstances I outlined, Oswald could be   
   innocent. IOW, present a scenario that would    
   produce the body of evidence we have in the murders of Kennedy and Tippit and   
   we can compare that scenario to the one   
   which the WC gave us and decide which is the more credible scenario.    
   >    
   > You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING   
   in common with this case.    
   > "Yeah, but what about...."    
   >    
   You want us to find crimes that have something in common with the JFK   
   assassination. OK, how many case do we have in   
   which a US president was assassinated with a rifle? How many US presidents   
   were assassinated while riding in a vehicle?   
   How many cases do we have in which a US president was assassinated with a   
   gunshot to the back of the head. OK, we have   
   one to compare it with but only if you accept JFK was also shot in the back of   
   the head.    
      
   Perhaps you could tells us about some cases that have things in common with   
   the JFK assassination.    
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)