Lame LN excuses

[John Iacoletti]

The Whaley issue is really odd and goes nowhere, if Oswald used public transport to get the the rooming house that has absolutely no bearing on his guilt and the only real viable alternative is that Oswald had a getaway car which has a huge impact on his guilt.

"the only real viable alternative".  LOL.

And the Davis girls just happened to live a couple of doors down from a random killing but somehow they became involved within hours and they both had to quickly make up some story and because poor Virginia made a simple "typo" she is accused of being the spawn of Satan!

Embarrassingly transparent strawman.  The inconsistency of the Davis accounts merely means that you cannot rely on their accuracy.

[Bill Brown]

FBI reports are secondhand information.

Whaley, in his affidavit, described the shirt Oswald was wearing, in detail.  Nothing about two jackets.  Whaley signed this.  So now what?

[John Iacoletti]

This doesn't change the fact that you've already admitted that Marina was shown a jacket.  C'mon.  Own it.  You can do it.

What it does at best is show that witnesses don't always know what they're looking at, and at worst that the WC misstated exhibit numbers.

There's nothing to "own", Bill.  Sorry.  How could I "admit" something that I have no knowledge of?

[Bill Brown]

What it does at beast is show that witnesses don't always know what they're looking at, and at worst that the WC misstated exhibit numbers.

There's nothing to "own", Bill.  Sorry.  How could I "admit" something that I have no knowledge of?

So now you're implying that they might not have showed Marina 162 but mistakenly called it 162 as they were presenting it to her.  Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook, I guess.

[John Iacoletti]

Whaley, in his affidavit, described the shirt Oswald was wearing, in detail.  Nothing about two jackets.  Whaley signed this.  So now what?

Not mentioning the jackets doesn't necessarily mean there were no jackets.  And even if it did, all that would mean is that we don't know which account -- if either -- was correct.

By the way, what shirt belonging to Oswald had "white spots of something on it"?

[John Iacoletti]

So now you're implying that they might not have showed Marina 162 but mistakenly called it 162 as they were presenting it to her.  Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook, I guess.

Says the guy who hasn't gotten anybody on the hook to begin with.

[John Mytton]

The inconsistency of the Davis accounts merely means that you cannot rely on their accuracy.

Yes, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable yet it's still a staple in every courtroom, you being Oswald's defence attorney will attempt to rely on this absurd generalization as above to completely discredit the two girls but that's not how it works, that's never been how it works.
Every facet of their accounts and all the eyewitness accounts would be examined and the jury would create their own narrative from ALL the evidence.
The following map is a result of this co-ordinated corroborated narrative and minor tiny discrepancies that you find oh so important, pale into insignificance when the entire event is examined. Like who cares the order of when the phone call was made or any of the pissweak things that have no bearing on the overall picture.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

Formally known as a false dichotomy fallacy.

Nice catch.

 

I stand by my original comment.



JohnM