Why the first shot missed

[John Iacoletti]

Just in the vacant recesses of your skull.

Cool insult, bro.

I suppose you consider that “circumstantial evidence” against Oswald too.

[Tom Mahon]

I suppose you consider that “circumstantial evidence” against Oswald too.

John Iacoletti seems to believe that circumstantial evidence isn't really evidence.

[Tom Mahon]

Yes she did. And Ruth Paine testified that she was the one who found it. One of Marina’s statements (CD79) said she saw it lying on top of the dresser. Nothing about a cup. Another one of here statements (CE1820) said that the police found it. An FBI report (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 16, p. 93) says that the police found it on the dresser.

Was there ever a ring there, and was it actually in a cup? Who knows?

But what the hell does that have to do with who killed JFK? Nothing, unless you’re desperate to invent “evidence”.

You mean KGB informant (according to KGB true defector Pyotr Deriabin) Marina and Russophile Ruthie gave confusing, conflicting testimony?

Imagine that!

[John Iacoletti]

John Iacoletti seems to believe that circumstantial evidence isn't really evidence.

It's not "circumstantial evidence" either.  All it is evidence of is your confirmation bias.

[John Iacoletti]

You mean KGB informant (according to KGB true defector Pyotr Deriabin) Marina and Russophile Ruthie gave confusing, conflicting testimony?

Imagine that!

Sorry, is that supposed to show that your little wishful thinking story about the wedding ring is actual evidence of something?

[Tom Mahon]

It's not "circumstantial evidence" either.  All it is evidence of is your confirmation bias.

In your humble opinion, is there any legitimate "circumstantial evidence" in the JFKA case that points to the psychologically disturbed, sharpshooting, self-described Marxist known as Lee Harvey Oswald as being the person who killed JFK?

[John Iacoletti]

Not that I'm aware of.  Your description isn't even accurate.

[Tom Mahon]

Not that I'm aware of.  Your description isn't even accurate.

1) If in your opinion there is not even any circumstantial evidence that tends to incriminate Oswald for the assassination of JFK, does that mean you think (sic) "Lone Nutters" have been fooled by "evidence" that was fabricated against him?

2) In your humble opinion, which of these is an incorrect description of Oswald:

A) He was psychologically disturbed.

B) He was a sharpshooter.

C) He was a self-described Marxist.