Parnell Vs Armstrong Bill Brown et al, Can applied tech resolve Who Shot Tippit?

[Richard Smith]

There is nothing to explain, at least to people with a functional brain. "accept it" means I would accept the outcome of a dna test on the jacket, regardless of how it turns out. Now can you say, and would you do, the same?

If dna was found in the jacket and it doesn't belong to Oswald, would you accept that CE 162 was not Oswald's jacket or at least wasn't worn by him?

You would "accept" the outcome of a test? What exactly does that mean?  That you would accept Oswald wore the jacket on 11.22 and discarded it in flight from the Tippit murder?  My understanding is that this jacket may have been previously owned due to the laundry mark.  In other words, Oswald would not be the only person to have ever worn it and nearly 60 years later it has no doubt been handled by many others who could have left their DNA.  So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable.  For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here.   I was actually asking about the presence of Tippit's DNA on Oswald's shoes or pants.  If that was found, what would that mean to you?

[Bill Chapman]

Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted

Your obsession with me predates your parroting, copy-cat.

[Martin Weidmann]

You would "accept" the outcome of a test? What exactly does that mean?  That you would accept Oswald wore the jacket on 11.22 and discarded it in flight from the Tippit murder?  My understanding is that this jacket may have been previously owned due to the laundry mark.  In other words, Oswald would not be the only person to have ever worn it and nearly 60 years later it has no doubt been handled by many others who could have left their DNA.  So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable.  For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here.   I was actually asking about the presence of Tippit's DNA on Oswald's shoes or pants.  If that was found, what would that mean to you?

You would "accept" the outcome of a test? What exactly does that mean?

It means exactly what I said it means.

So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable.  For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here.

What is really stupid (but rather common for you) is suggesting that I did suggest that, when I did no such thing. It's just another pathetic strawman. All I am concerned with is the presence of Oswald's dna on the jacket. If it's there, it means he must have worn it. If it's not there he most likely didn't wear it. Now, if a dna test on the jacket does not find Oswald's dna would you accept that he likely did not wear it? Or are you going to be evasive again?

I was actually asking about the presence of Tippit's DNA on Oswald's shoes or pants.  If that was found, what would that mean to you?

Then you should have asked more clearly. But the answer is a simple one. If Tippit's dna is found on Oswald's shoes or pants then it means conclusively that he was close to Tippit at 10th/Patton, as the likelihood of a dna transfer on any other occassion is extremely remote.

[Martin Weidmann]

Your obsession with me predates your parroting, copy-cat.

John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.

Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted

[Bill Chapman]

John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
LOL! What's this; Back to the Future? Tell us how I would know that someone played this 'game' if it happened long before I came along, buck-passer.

Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
Run, Marty... RUN

[Martin Weidmann]

John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
LOL! What's this; Back to the Future? Tell us how I would know that someone played this 'game' if it happened long before I came along, buck-passer.

Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
Run, Marty... RUN

John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
LOL! What's this; Back to the Future? Tell us how I would know that someone played this 'game' if it happened long before I came along, buck-passer.

Don't have to. I don't know where you picked it up, but most LNs are not active on just one board, so who knows how you would know. It's a common practice for LNs and it most certainly isn't something you exclusively came up with, just as this is;

Run, Marty... RUN

It has all been done thousands of times before and it's pretty boring.

But your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted

[Richard Smith]

You would "accept" the outcome of a test? What exactly does that mean?

It means exactly what I said it means.

So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable.  For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here.

What is really stupid (but rather common for you) is suggesting that I did suggest that, when I did no such thing. It's just another pathetic strawman. All I am concerned with is the presence of Oswald's dna on the jacket. If it's there, it means he must have worn it. If it's not there he most likely didn't wear it. Now, if a dna test on the jacket does not find Oswald's dna would you accept that he likely did not wear it? Or are you going to be evasive again?

I was actually asking about the presence of Tippit's DNA on Oswald's shoes or pants.  If that was found, what would that mean to you?

Then you should have asked more clearly. But the answer is a simple one. If Tippit's dna is found on Oswald's shoes or pants then it means conclusively that he was close to Tippit at 10th/Patton, as the likelihood of a dna transfer on any other occassion is extremely remote.

Translation:  Even if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket, our resident contrarian would argue that simply means Oswald had "worn" it on some occasion but not necessarily that he had worn it while murdering Tippit and discarded it.  And even if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants, then our contrarian would argue that means only that he was "close" to Tippit.  Whatever that means.  Not that he was the murderer.  And round and round it goes endlessly down the rabbit hole.  No better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt than this nonsense.