Why the first shot missed

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Why the first shot missed  (Read 138666 times)

Online Tom Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3495
Re: Why the first shot missed
« Reply #238 on: January 28, 2025, 01:44:42 AM »
Is there an echo in here?

Just in the vacant recesses of your skull.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: Why the first shot missed
« Reply #239 on: January 30, 2025, 11:24:39 PM »
Didn't Marina testify that she found Lee's wedding ring that day (11/22/63) in the special-to-her little cup her grandmother had given her?

Yes she did. And Ruth Paine testified that she was the one who found it. One of Marina’s statements (CD79) said she saw it lying on top of the dresser. Nothing about a cup. Another one of here statements (CE1820) said that the police found it. An FBI report (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 16, p. 93) says that the police found it on the dresser.

Was there ever a ring there, and was it actually in a cup? Who knows?

But what the hell does that have to do with who killed JFK? Nothing, unless you’re desperate to invent “evidence”.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: Why the first shot missed
« Reply #240 on: January 30, 2025, 11:25:54 PM »
Just in the vacant recesses of your skull.

Cool insult, bro.

I suppose you consider that “circumstantial evidence” against Oswald too.

Online Tom Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3495
Re: Why the first shot missed
« Reply #241 on: January 31, 2025, 01:14:18 AM »
I suppose you consider that “circumstantial evidence” against Oswald too.

John Iacoletti seems to believe that circumstantial evidence isn't really evidence.

Online Tom Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3495
Re: Why the first shot missed
« Reply #242 on: January 31, 2025, 01:17:20 AM »
Yes she did. And Ruth Paine testified that she was the one who found it. One of Marina’s statements (CD79) said she saw it lying on top of the dresser. Nothing about a cup. Another one of here statements (CE1820) said that the police found it. An FBI report (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 16, p. 93) says that the police found it on the dresser.

Was there ever a ring there, and was it actually in a cup? Who knows?

But what the hell does that have to do with who killed JFK? Nothing, unless you’re desperate to invent “evidence”.

You mean KGB informant (according to KGB true defector Pyotr Deriabin) Marina and Russophile Ruthie gave confusing, conflicting testimony?

Imagine that!

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: Why the first shot missed
« Reply #243 on: February 01, 2025, 09:15:50 PM »
John Iacoletti seems to believe that circumstantial evidence isn't really evidence.

It's not "circumstantial evidence" either.  All it is evidence of is your confirmation bias.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: Why the first shot missed
« Reply #244 on: February 01, 2025, 09:17:30 PM »
You mean KGB informant (according to KGB true defector Pyotr Deriabin) Marina and Russophile Ruthie gave confusing, conflicting testimony?

Imagine that!

Sorry, is that supposed to show that your little wishful thinking story about the wedding ring is actual evidence of something?