Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Bill Chapman]

Really?

Representative FORD. The suggestion has been made, Mr. Murray, that perhaps you would like to look at that palmprint and the fingerprint on the wrapping, and you might make a statement the same as Mr. Dulles and I have made.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you point out to Mr. Murray, Mr. Latona, the two prints?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir. "A" is the fingerprint.
Mr. DULLES. And the witness certifies that these are true photographs of the fingerprint and the palmprint that you have exhibited?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.
Mr. MURRAY. May I say for the. record, Mr. Chairman, that I definitely and clearly saw what appeared to me to be a palmprint in the port of Exhibit 142 which was designated with a "B," and less clearly, but nevertheless I did see, the fingerprint on the other portion of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona----
Mr. LATONA. "B" is the finger, and "A" is the palm.

.... and?

[John Iacoletti]

I agree that the ring/money thing on it's own could not convict Oswald. Pretty sure that no LNer is claiming that. Go ahead and continue to try and make it look like we are. You are only making yourself look the fool.

Why bring up conjecture like this at all instead of discussing what you think constitutes real evidence.  Because it's all conjecture?

Speaking of looking the fool, Bugliosi did try to claim that every individual piece of his "evidence" (yes, including the ring in a cup) was sufficient to convict Oswald.  Do you disagree?

[Bill Chapman]

Why bring up conjecture like this at all instead of discussing what you think constitutes real evidence.  Because it's all conjecture?

Speaking of looking the fool, Bugliosi did try to claim that every individual piece of his "evidence" (yes, including the ring in a cup) was sufficient to convict Oswald.  Do you disagree?

Richard brought up the ring/money thing. I brought up the ongoing attack you apply to any mention of an individual non-routine action Oswald took in those last couple of days.

Are you certain that Bug claimed every one of those claims would convict on their own? I read where he said that he could throw 30 of them out and still convict.

[John Iacoletti]

Richard brought up the ring/money thing. I brought up the ongoing attack you apply to any mention of an individual non-routine action Oswald took in those last couple of days.

It's not an attack.  It's just pointing out that it's ridiculous to apply nefarious intent to everything Oswald happened to do on those days -- for no other reason than because you already think that he had nefarious intent.

Are you certain that Bug claimed every one of those claims would convict on their own? I read where he said that he could throw 30 of them out and still convict.

Pretty certain.  The cite got lost in the forum crash.

[John Iacoletti]

What ring? Can you cite the DPD evidence log that shows a wedding ring on it?

Not only that, but Ruth and Marina disagreed on who found it and when.

[Richard Smith]

What ring? Can you cite the DPD evidence log that shows a wedding ring on it?

Do you see it on Oswald's finger in the photos after his arrest?  What do you think happened?  Someone tried to frame Oswald by forcibly taking his wedding ring and leaving it in a cup at Paine's home?  Then overlook it in a search. LOL.  You kooks are amazing.  And then without missing a beat you also claim it is not evidence of guilt.  The very thing you imply is the purpose for someone to plant it.  To make it look as though Oswald had foreknowledge of the event. Narrative consistency has never been a strong suit of fringe element.

[John Iacoletti]

Do you see it on Oswald's finger in the photos after his arrest?  What do you think happened?  Someone tried to frame Oswald by forcibly taking his wedding ring and leaving it in a cup at Paine's home?  Then overlook it in a search. LOL.  You kooks are amazing.  And then without missing a beat you also claim it is not evidence of guilt.  The very thing you imply is the purpose for someone to plant it.  To make it look as though Oswald had foreknowledge of the event. Narrative consistency has never been a strong suit of fringe element.

This is a complete non-starter as you have no idea when Oswald last had his wedding ring on to begin with.  And who the hell said that "someone tried to frame Oswald by forcibly taking his wedding ring and leaving it in a cup at Paine's home", Mr. Strawman?  You are the only kooks who think a ring in a cup means "planning to kill the president".

[Richard Smith]

It doesn't work this way. You are claiming his ring was found by the DPD, but have provided ZERO evidence showing that they did. Sound familiar? It should since this is how every WC claim went.

Speculation is NOT evidence. Opinion is NOT evidence. Assumption is NOT evidence.

Where did I claim his ring was found by the DPD?  I did the opposite by pointing out it was not on Oswald when he was arrested by the DPD because he left it at the Paine home.  When discovered it was turned over to the FBI.  In your own bizarre way, you have added credence to Oswald having left the ring at the Paine residence by noting that there is no evidence he had it on when arrested.  Very humorous.