23-09-2013, 09:13 AM
C. Savastano, you state:
I am using reasonable doubt as my basis for proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he accused of.
We are not under Napoleonic law; we enjoy the presumption of innocence.
You may cease "proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he [is] accused of"--that is not what America represents in the struggle to be free of monarchic rule.
Oswald did not shoot anyone that day.
The man wasn't in the window alleged.
The man didn't possess the weapon alleged.
The wounds were not caused from the rear.
Do you think you'll change the mind of lone-nut propagandists with your "careful reasoning"?
There's nothing careful or reasonable about them--they're either simpletons or complicit.
I am using reasonable doubt as my basis for proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he accused of.
We are not under Napoleonic law; we enjoy the presumption of innocence.
You may cease "proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he [is] accused of"--that is not what America represents in the struggle to be free of monarchic rule.
Oswald did not shoot anyone that day.
The man wasn't in the window alleged.
The man didn't possess the weapon alleged.
The wounds were not caused from the rear.
Do you think you'll change the mind of lone-nut propagandists with your "careful reasoning"?
There's nothing careful or reasonable about them--they're either simpletons or complicit.