JB
But you have to remember where this case was tried. Italy.
She was a woman and she had weird sex. That's all they needed.
Yeah, 'cause they were real big on DNA evidence in the early-mid 1960s.
Why not apply today's standards to an almost 50-year-old case?
What DNA evidence did Ito disallow?
>and it is what would
> have happened if LHO had ever gone to trial.
What DNA evidence is there against Oswald?
> The evidence is contaminated,
> therefore, it cannot be considered at all.
Poor thinkers ignorant of the law might make this claim, but do the
courts say?
> JB
DNA analysis today is settling some questions about old cases. Even the
pharoahs, proving who was related to whom.
Excuse me. I think he was making analogies, not saying that each case is
EXACTLY the same as the other. Tampering with evidence, destruction of
evidence, cross-contamination, mishandling evidence. That can be a problem
for ANY trial.
Missed the point totally, Tony. Blubaugh's claim (note the quotes):
"This is what happened in the O.J. case and it is what would have
happened if LHO had ever gone to trial."
comes down to "they wouldn't have tried Oswald until DNA evidence was
available."
I don't think you can hold someone for 40+ years in this country without
a trial. But then I never did go to law school...
Thank you for that opinion, Judge Blubaugh.
I guess we can't ever figure out what happened now since according to
you the evidence is all contaminated. We might as well shut down this
forum. Unless of course you think there is some uncontaminated
evidence out there that hasn't been found.
No, YOU missed the point. He wasn't talking about literally the cases
were exactly the same. He was making a comparison of the mishandling of
evidence and possible evidence tampering.
> I don't think you can hold someone for 40+ years in this country without
> a trial. But then I never did go to law school...
>
He didn't say that, but nowadays they do.
Not 40 years. 23 years. DNA was first used in 1987.
And DNA can still be used to solve 40-year-old crimes.
DNA could be used in the JFK case, but the DOJ refused to do any.
Just seeing if this will update sometime.
Thats a silly thing to think. He was comparing apples with oranges, and
showing a poor understanding of both.
You are so full of crap. I didn't intend my statement that way. The
similarity is that the evidence in the Kennedy case was allowed to be
contaminated. It doesn't matter if it was because of DNA or fiber
evidence. And, for your enlightenment, many cases have gone back years to
use DNA techniques to examine old evidence.
JB
If the purpose of this forum was to convict, LHO, then you are right,
it might as well be closed down because the evidence collected is
mostly useless for that purpose because of contamination.
JB
You seem to insist on rejecting all of the evidence in the JFK
assassination. Why don't you make it simple for us and tell us what
evidence we have that passes Blubaugh's Rules of Evidence so we can start
to finally get to the bottom of what happened.
"I'm full of crap"!?!
Show me some evidence, ANY evidence, that you have that ANYONE other
than LHO was involved in the shootings of Tippit and Kennedy.
You know you can't.
And I'M the one who is "full of crap"??? Better look in the mirror, Bucko.
The CTs have done this over and over again. Google search if your
memory is that bad.
JB
I an not insisting on anything. I'm just point out that the evidence was
not collected properly and that it was not handled properly after that and
I believe much of it would have been inadmissable because of that. Perhaps
if LHO had not been killed some of that might have been different but I
doubt it.
JB
It's the John Blubaugh "Shawshank Redemption" cry: everyone here's
innocent, didn't you know that?
Your post and question is just silly. Not ALL of the evidence points
toward LHO and some of the evidence you like to cite all of the time
doesn't point toward anyone at all.
JB
Well I started a thread three weeks ago asking CTs to cite evidence that
implicates someone other than Oswald and you bailed on that one too. You
bail every time you are asked to cite evidence to support your beliefs. If
there is evidence that points to someone other than Oswald, why are you
always incapable of presenting it?
Gee. Another vague and nonsensical comment. Can you actually show some
evidence that points away from Oswald?
Thought so.
> JB
>
Why do you keep asking the same questions even though they have been
answered over and over again? If I cite evidence, you will just say that
evidence is no good because it doesn't point in the direction you want. I
have played this game with you before. Look up the old results.
JB
Because it hasn't been answered over and over again. It has been
dodged over and over again. You never answer the questions that are
asked. "Learn to google" is not an answer.
> If I cite evidence,
The biggest "if" on aaj.
> you will just say that
> evidence is no good because it doesn't point in the direction you want.
On the contrary, I would be delighted if you or your cohorts would
actually cite some evidence for a change because it would give us
something worth discussing. If you followed the thread I started in
which I asked the CTs to present evidence that someone other than
Oswald was involved, you would know that I acknowledged the accoustics
evidence does meet that criteria. That doesn't mean that I accept the
conclusions reached by the accoustics team, but I accept that it is
evidence that is worth examining. On the other hand you never offer
evidence, just your own assumptions and speculations and those will
never constitute evidence anywhere.
> I have played this game with you before.
Yes, you are very good at playing dodgeball.
> Look up the old results.
>
Look up the old threads. Learn to google. That's all you've got.
That's all you have ever had. You can't present any real evidence
because you simply don't have any.
Big 'if' there JB, since you've never cited evidence, or anything
resembling evidence.
Of course I have and so have lots of other people...... Look it up in
your Funk and Wagnals.... or just Google it.
JB
I doubt it. They are as tired of playing your silly game of asking for
the same information over and over again. I'll bet they won't play
either. What I believe is not faith based, you are the one with that
problem. You would believe anything the government, the police or the
WC told you without question. That is a definition of faith.
JB
They can't provide any evidence either but at least they aren't
foolish enough to claim they have cited evidence when they know damn
well they haven't.
> I'll bet they won't play
> either. What I believe is not faith based, you are the one with that
> problem. You would believe anything the government, the police or the
> WC told you without question. That is a definition of faith.
>
Last I checked, the government told us it was a conspiracy. Which one
of us blindly accepts that conclusion?