The number one CT nightmare question ...

[Thomas Graves]

Are you automatically assuming that it [the palm print] came from the Carcano?

Iacoletti,

Are you automatically assuming otherwise?

If so, why?

Because you want to believe "the evil, evil, evil Deep State" killed Kennedy?

-- MWT 
 

[John Iacoletti]

Quite simply, there is no reason to accept the claim that the magic palmprint was lifted from the Carcano rifle as being true.

[Thomas Graves]

Whatever gave you the idea that this is my theory?

Iacoletti,

That WHAT'S your theory, then?

That Oswald was quickly framed, after the fact, by bogus evidence and witness statements, even though the bad guys didn't know until immediately after the assassination that it was he they were going to frame?

Isn't that what you ... gasp ... believe?

-- MWT 

[Thomas Graves]

Quite simply, there is no reason to accept the claim that the magic palmprint was lifted from the Carcano rifle as being true.

Because the palm print wasn't photographed on the rifle at the time, or because the index card wasn't notarized, or something?

-- MWT 

[John Iacoletti]

Iacoletti,

That WHAT'S your theory, then?

That Oswald was quickly framed, after the fact, by bogus evidence and witness statements, even though the bad guys didn't know until immediately after the assassination that it was he they were going to frame?

Isn't that what you ... gasp ... believe?

Are you just going to keep making stuff up to argue against?

My position is that the case against Oswald for the murder of JFK is weak, circumstantial, and tainted, and cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Period.

[John Iacoletti]

Because the palm print wasn't photographed on the rifle at the time, or because the index card wasn't notarized, or something?

Because there is no evidence to support it (other than "Carl Day said so"), and several reasons to question it.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1979.msg53715.html#msg53715

[Bill Chapman]

Says a Warren Commission believer.

 I'm more of a CTer non-believer

And don't quit your day job, Sherlock.

[Thomas Graves]

My position is that the case against Oswald for the murder of JFK is weak, circumstantial, and tainted, and cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Iacoletti,

Earlier in this thread, you replied to an Ostensible Lone Nutter (who doubted that the bad guys would have allowed Oswald to venture outside where he could be caught on film or noticed by other people) by glibly suggesting that Oswald was framed after-the-fact, and that if he hadn't gone to work that morning, or if the bad guys had noticed his doing jumping jacks or some-such thing in full sunlight, that the bad guys could just as easily have framed some other TSBD employee, instead.

Am I correct?

-- MWT