From: d04108200@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 12:40:46 PM UTC-8, JE Corbett wrote:   
   > 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.   
       
   yeah, but, what about....  what a live bait turdling. -- carry on.....    
   rotflmfao   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)