From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 7:13:09 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:55:57 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here   
   wrote:    
   > > Well, of course! But if we are to be kind to the Retards, we can agree   
   with them that historical consensus does develop around such issues, as around   
   Oswald's guilt. But how does one define that consensus? Are the people, the   
   citizens, involved at    
   all in such a consensus? Or is it just professional money-making historians,   
   the ones who are handsomely paid by the ruling class? Since the Retards have   
   put forth the argument, the burden is upon them to provide the definition. The   
   poor dears seem to be    
   in over their heads here.   
   > I agree.    
   > The credibility of a criminal case is directly connected to the credibility   
   of the authorities making that case.    
   >    
   > Forget that we're talking about Oswald for a minute.    
   >    
   > Take a criminal case where:    
   >    
   > The police were corrupt    
   > Police continued to question the suspect after he had "lawyered up".    
   > The police lied during their testimony under oath ( perjury )    
   > There were no chain of custody forms made out for the evidence at the time   
   of discovery    
   > There was no documentation proving the suspect was advised of his rights and   
   waived those rights.    
   > Several items currently in evidence were not photographed as found    
   > The suspect was not allowed a phone call until 1:40 pm the following day    
   > The suspect's family was denied access to him until the next day    
   > Legal assistance ( ACLU ) was dissuaded by police from talking to the   
   suspect    
   > The police lineups were unfair    
   > The DA was corrupt and only cared about convicting the person arrested    
   > The handling of the evidence by police allowed for the opportunity for   
   tampering    
   > The witnesses could not identify the items in evidence as the evidence they   
   found    
   > The witnesses were threatened and harassed    
   > Key witnesses were ignored    
   > FBI reports lied about what the witnesses said    
   >    
   > Who TF in their right mind could accept THAT case as an air-tight case of a   
   suspect's guilt ?    
   > REALLY   
      
   Nobody.   
      
   Now establish all the above applies to Oswald in the JFK assassination.   
      
   Go ahead, we’ll wait.   
      
   But I won’t hold my breath.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)