James Leon Simmons.... Overpass Witness

[John Iacoletti]

This is where you're flat out wrong, but I don't expect you to understand.

For anyone else who cares...

No surprise that you're moving the goal posts.  You made claims about the magic revolver and the magic palmprint and then somehow that morphs into a claim about what you think a court would admit as evidence.  Martin has explained that particular fallacy on multiple occasions.

At trial, the evidence, like the shell casing found by Barbara Davis (for example), would be offered into evidence.  George Doughty would be called upon to identify the shell given to him by Barbara Davis as well as to identify his initials on this shell.  This would surely get the shell casing admitted into evidence.

Is what you think would "surely" happen at a hypothetical trial supposed to be evidence of anything?

Oswald's defense lawyer, one John Iacoletti, would bitch and holler that there is no chain of custody for this shell casing. 

No, a defense lawyer would put Doughty on the stand and ask him if he recovered the shell from the crime scene or if it was handed to him.

[Bill Brown]

No surprise that you're moving the goal posts.  You made claims about the magic revolver and the magic palmprint and then somehow that morphs into a claim about what you think a court would admit as evidence.  Martin has explained that particular fallacy on multiple occasions.

Is what you think would "surely" happen at a hypothetical trial supposed to be evidence of anything?

No, a defense lawyer would put Doughty on the stand and ask him if he recovered the shell from the crime scene or if it was handed to him.

No surprise that you're moving the goal posts.

No moving of the goal posts required to show your mistakes.  You have claimed that there is no chain of custody for either of the two Davis shells.

You made claims about the magic revolver and the magic palmprint and then somehow that morphs into a claim about what you think a court would admit as evidence.

Are you saying that the two Davis shells would not be allowed into evidence?

Martin has explained that particular fallacy on multiple occasions.

LOL

Is what you think would "surely" happen at a hypothetical trial supposed to be evidence of anything?

I'm just telling you how it is.  In June of '64, the FBI went to George Doughty with the four shells found at the Tippit scene.  Doughty identified the Winchester-Western shell given to him by Barbara Davis and pointed out his initials on that shell.

George Doughty would be called upon to identify the shell given to him by Barbara Davis as well as to identify his initials on this shell.  This would surely get the shell casing admitted into evidence.

Do you have some sort of information which would prevent this shell casing from getting admitted into evidence?  Or, are you just bitching and hollering again?

No, a defense lawyer would put Doughty on the stand and ask him if he recovered the shell from the crime scene or if it was handed to him.

Correct.  So what?

[John Iacoletti]

No moving of the goal posts required to show your mistakes.  You have claimed that there is no chain of custody for either of the two Davis shells.

This was the post you were responding to.  No mention of any shells anywhere in there.  You moved the goalposts.

It's been demonstrated repeatedly.  Your response is to just bleat "there is no doubt of Oswald's guilt" over and over again as if your lack of doubt proves anything.

You'll never be able to show that the revolver Hill fished out of his pocket 2 hours later which was then and only then initialed by everybody at the police station (including by a guy who never supposedly even touched it to begin with) was ever at the Texas Theater in anybody's waistband.

You'll never be able to show that the partial palmprint that turned up on an index card in Washington a week later was ever on the barrel of CE 139.

Are you saying that the two Davis shells would not be allowed into evidence?

I have no idea.  But you don't just get to declare that they would be.  And even if they were that doesn't mean they are automatically authenticated.

I'm just telling you how it is.  In June of '64, the FBI went to George Doughty with the four shells found at the Tippit scene.  Doughty identified the Winchester-Western shell given to him by Barbara Davis and pointed out his initials on that shell.

Interesting.  And did those initials say "DO" or "GD"?

Correct.  So what?

So the obvious next question is, how do you know where that shell you supposedly initialed came from?

[Bill Brown]

This was the post you were responding to.  No mention of any shells anywhere in there.  You moved the goalposts.


I have no idea.  But you don't just get to declare that they would be.  And even if they were that doesn't mean they are automatically authenticated.

Interesting.  And did those initials say "DO" or "GD"?

So the obvious next question is, how do you know where that shell you supposedly initialed came from?

This was the post you were responding to.  No mention of any shells anywhere in there.  You moved the goalposts.

That certainly is not moving the goal posts.  But, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel smarter.

I have no idea.  But you don't just get to declare that they would be.  And even if they were that doesn't mean they are automatically authenticated.

That's right; you have no idea.

Doughty indeed authenticates the shell casing.

Interesting.  And did those initials say "DO" or "GD"?

Are you saying Doughty did not identify his initials on the casing?

So the obvious next question is, how do you know where that shell you supposedly initialed came from?

I understood this was the obvious next question.

The next obvious question is how is the answer to your obvious question supposed to show a broken chain for the shell?

[John Iacoletti]

That certainly is not moving the goal posts.  But, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel smarter.

It's textbook moving the goalposts.  I mention the revolver and the partial palmprint, and you shift it to a discussion about the shells because you think you can make a better case for them (or at least one of them).

That's right; you have no idea.

At least I'm willing to admit it.  You make up a fantasy trial and come up with a fantasy claim about what would be admitted as if your fantasies have any bearing on reality.

Are you saying Doughty did not identify his initials on the casing?

How valid is the identification if he can't even read the letters correctly?

The next obvious question is how is the answer to your obvious question supposed to show a broken chain for the shell?

It's enough to show doubt that it actually came from the crime scene.

[John Mytton]

More games. I meant Elm Street could have, and should have, been used instead of Main Street.

Thanks for pointing this out with your graphic. 👍

You're still not making sense, somewhere the Limo had to turn onto Elm Street therefore there was a turn.



JohnM

[Bill Brown]

It's textbook moving the goalposts.  I mention the revolver and the partial palmprint, and you shift it to a discussion about the shells because you think you can make a better case for them (or at least one of them).

At least I'm willing to admit it.  You make up a fantasy trial and come up with a fantasy claim about what would be admitted as if your fantasies have any bearing on reality.

How valid is the identification if he can't even read the letters correctly?

It's enough to show doubt that it actually came from the crime scene.

You apparently have no idea what the definition of the word "doubt" is.  This is pathetic.

The shell was found at the scene by Barbara Davis.  She turned it over to George Doughty who initialed the shell casing and later positively identified it as the one given to him by Davis.

Just because the casing was turned over later that afternoon certainly is not enough to cast doubt on whether or not it came from the crime scene.