James Leon Simmons.... Overpass Witness

[John Iacoletti]

Do you really think your rhetoric is at all compelling?  It's one thing to just declare that "there is a problem with the chain of custody of the evidence".  Quite another to demonstrate that it's actually true.

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.

[Bill Brown]

Tom Meros: And when he walked on ahead of you could you even see the package?
Buell Frazier:  No

"I saw him go in the back door at the loading dock of the building that we work in and he still had the package under his arm." - Buell Frazier, 11/22/63

[Bill Brown]

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.

It's NOT been demonstrated repeatedly.  Your response is to just bleat "there is a problem with the chain of custody of much of the evidence" over and over again as if your lack of doubt in the validity of the evidence proves anything.

You'll never be able to show that the revolver in evidence was NOT the revolver taken from Oswald while inside the theater.  If you could, you would have by now.

You'll never be able to show that the partial palm print was not taken from the barrel of CE 139.  If you could, you would have by now.

[John Mytton]

Your last graphic begs a question. Why didn't the motorcade simply come down Elm Street into DP?

No turns would have been needed then.

No turns would have been needed then.

So from Love Field to Elm Street was just one long straight road? WOW!



JohnM

[John Mytton]

You'll never be able to show that the partial palm print was not taken from the barrel of CE 139.  If you could, you would have by now.

 





JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

Your last graphic begs a question. Why didn't the motorcade simply come down Elm Street into DP?

No turns would have been needed then.

You've been schooled on that.

[John Iacoletti]

You'll never be able to show that the revolver in evidence was NOT the revolver taken from Oswald while inside the theater.  If you could, you would have by now.

You'll never be able to show that the partial palm print was not taken from the barrel of CE 139.  If you could, you would have by now.

Your claims, your burden of proof.

[John Iacoletti]

Yeah, those black smudges look totally identical, Mr. yellow blob man.