Gil Jesus wrote:
> Raymond:
>
> Normally, in a criminal case, eyewitness testimony is the least
> reliable of all evidence.
>
> However, the trolls would like to twist that fact around and say that
> all eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable all of the time.
>
> That's not true.
>
> Case in point: The only "evidence" they have that puts Oswald in the
> window is from .....an eyewitness. And one that reluctantly identified
> him at that.
He was corroborated by a number of other witnesses who saw a rifle
barrel in that window. And his story was corroborated further when the
location was searched, and physical evidence found there. Does Jean
Hill have such corroboration?
> In this case where the "evidence" was manufactured, tampered with,
> substituted, where witnesses were threatened, where witnesses were
> ignored, where affidavits were altered to say something that the
> witness later claimed he/she never said......in a case such as this,
> where EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS QUESTIONABLE and where, in
> many cases NO CHAIN OF POSSESSION OF THE EVIDENCE EXISTS........
> eyewitness accounts and interviews become the one SOLID piece of
> evidence that cannot be refuted.
Stupid thinking. Who took the information from these folks? You`ve
now throw out all the evidence in the case, Gil, now what?
> As we saw in the OJ trial, when police tamper with evidence,
What evidence was found to be tampered with in the OJ trial,
numbskull?
>the
> accused walks. I believe that OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman, but
> the LAPD put the victims' blood on a glove that did not fit Simpson,
There were two bloody gloves, idjit, one at Rockingham, and one at
Bundy. Your theory is they took two gloves to the scene of the murder,
put blood on one and left it at the murder scene, and took the other
to OJ`s house and planted it? They just knew he was the murderer, and
that they would need more evidence than they could find without
risking their freedom and careers? And what happens if OJ is giving a
benefit at a hospital while the murders took place? Someone has some
splaining to do Lucy.
> creating enough doubt in the minds of the jury that they could not
> return a "guilty" verdict.
That trial was won at jury selection.
> Good eyewitnesss videos here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude
|
