From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:36:20 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:   
   > On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:19:27 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:    
   > > 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.    
   > > You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin   
   of President Kennedy…"    
   > >    
   > > What did you mean by that?    
   > > > 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.    
   > > What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t   
   historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School,   
   because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never   
   tried.    
   > >    
   > > And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower   
   shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas   
   Tower?   
   > Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.   
   > >    
   > > Is that your final answer?    
   > > > 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.    
   > > That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t   
   have rights. You don’t understand the law.   
   > That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in.   
   Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew    
   > out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a   
   person accused of a crime due process before    
   > depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused   
   is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,    
   > liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process   
   nor presumption of innocence.   
      
   And, as I like to point out (Gil is not the first CT to argue Oswald is   
   historically innocent because he had no trial), there is no point to trying a   
   dead person, because if they find him guilty, what are they going to do, dig   
   him up and stick him in a    
   jail cell?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)