The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT

[Michael Capasse]

I only referred to the jacket, as far as the authorities feeling no need to pursue a chain of custody.

IOW - NO need to validate a piece evidence.
One of the dumbest things I have ever heard a nutter say. lame.

[Martin Weidmann]

First, I didn't say anything about the weapon, the bullets or the shell casings.  I only referred to the jacket, as far as the authorities feeling no need to pursue a chain of custody.

Secondly, I said what I said and I did not say what I did not say.  Make sense?

I also didn't say anything about the weapon, bullets and shell casings.

I also was only talking about the jacket. You know, the jacket that was described as being white by the officer who called in the find. The grey jacket that several officers marked despite the fact that they were not and could not have been in the chain of custody, and the same grey jacket that the FBI spent days on visiting some 400 dry cleaners in the greater Dallas and New Orleans area to track down a label found in the jacket.

Secondly, I said what I said and I did not say what I did not say.  Make sense?

You also frequently say what you don't say... Does that make sense?

[John Corbett]

You have got to laugh about the LN BS

On the one hand we have just had three LNs basically saying "once Oswald was dead nobody cared about the authenticity of the evidence".
Which of course means that they just threw bits and pieces together to wrap the case around an already dead man who couldn't defend himself.

And then on the other hand this clown keeps going on about what courts have accepted as "valid evidence".

Why do you have to tell blatant lies to make your points. Nobody ever said what you put in quotes. When you put something in quotes, it should be word for word what the person actually said. It's a very easy thing to quote somebody accurately by doing a Copy and Paste. Instead, you choose to make a strawman argument against something nobody said. Nobody said what you put in quotes and your words twisted the point we have actually made. We were speaking about the admissibility of the evidence which is different than the authenticity. Courts will sometimes declare authentic evidence inadmissible if the police or the prosecution failed to dot the i's and cross the t's. Of course, no one would expect an Oswald denier such as yourself to understand the difference.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why do you have to tell blatant lies to make your points. Nobody ever said what you put in quotes. When you put something in quotes, it should be word for word what the person actually said. It's a very easy thing to quote somebody accurately by doing a Copy and Paste. Instead, you choose to make a strawman argument against something nobody said. Nobody said what you put in quotes and your words twisted the point we have actually made. We were speaking about the admissibility of the evidence which is different than the authenticity. Courts will sometimes declare authentic evidence inadmissible if the police or the prosecution failed to dot the i's and cross the t's. Of course, no one would expect an Oswald denier such as yourself to understand the difference.

I quoted you accurately.

Are you still pretending fiber matching isn't real evidence? Are you still pretending our courts haven't accepted that as valid evidence for decades?

that's why the words "valid evidence" are in quotes.

I also have not misrepresented what you said, because you do keep going on and on about what courts have accepted for decades.

We were speaking about the admissibility of the evidence which is different than the authenticity.

Who is "we"?

Admissibility is indeed different than authenticity. Courts do allow all sorts of evidence to come in but not all evidence is actually proof of anything!

And besides, you were rambling on about "valid evidence" which clearly is not the case when the evidence isn't or can't be authenticated.

But keep digging your hole, if you like

[John Corbett]

I quoted you accurately.

I was speaking of the first quote which is entirely an invention of yours. Neither eye nor any other LN wrote that.

that's why the words "valid evidence" are in quotes.

That's another favorite ploy of CTs. They will clip a few words out of context which allows them to completely misrepresent what was actually said. If you guys actually had a valid argument to make, you wouldn't have to resort to such deceitful tactics.

I also have not misrepresented what you said, because you do keep going on and on about what courts have accepted for decades.

We were speaking about the admissibility of the evidence which is different than the authenticity.

Who is "we"?

Admissibility is indeed different than authenticity. Courts do allow all sorts of evidence to come in but not all evidence is actually proof of anything!

That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. Had the case gone to trial, the jury would have to ask themselves what the likelihood the fibers came from identical shirt to the one that was worn by the owner of the rifle. Ditto for the fibers found on the jacket.

And besides, you were rambling on about "valid evidence" which clearly is not the case when the evidence isn't or can't be authenticated.

But keep digging your hole, if you like

You must think you are winning this debate. By any chance, are you of Iranian descent?

[Martin Weidmann]

I was speaking of the first quote which is entirely an invention of yours. Neither eye nor any other LN wrote that.
That's another favorite ploy of CTs. They will clip a few words out of context which allows them to completely misrepresent what was actually said. If you guys actually had a valid argument to make, you wouldn't have to resort to such deceitful tactics.
That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. Had the case gone to trial, the jury would have to ask themselves what the likelihood the fibers came from identical shirt to the one that was worn by the owner of the rifle. Ditto for the fibers found on the jacket.
You must think you are winning this debate. By any chance, are you of Iranian descent?

I was speaking of the first quote which is entirely an invention of yours.

You should be more clear about what you mean. And that wasn't a quote. To call it one only exposes your paranoid mindset.

So, you don't understand the concept of "basically saying"? You don't understand that what follows isn't a verbatim quote?

Neither eye nor any other LN wrote that.

You have an eye that writes? Wow.... and nobody claimed LNs wrote that. You are really struggling with all this, aren't you?

That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. Had the case gone to trial, the jury would have to ask themselves what the likelihood the fibers came from identical shirt to the one that was worn by the owner of the rifle. Ditto for the fibers found on the jacket.

So, for once we agree. The jury usually weighs the evidence after the prosecution and defence have presented their case. That never happened in the JFK case, so why you keep bringing stuff like this up time after time is beyond me.

You must think you are winning this debate. By any chance, are you of Iranian descent?

Winning this debate? You really have me confused with some delusional fool who actually thinks it is possible with rational points and authentic evidence to ever get you to accept or admit defeat about anything!

You couldn't even handle being schooled about the existence of documents about the Frazier polygraph, which you falsely claimed didn't exist and I made up. You even tried to weasel your way out of that one.

I don't think in terms of winning or losing. Only people who are ego driven are concerned with having to win.... You know, people like you and John Mytton and a few others...

[John Mytton]

... and John Mytton...
 

Wow, your obsession with me has risen to a new level, how creepy, you sad miserable little man.

JohnM