The "smirk"

[Bill Chapman]

What “ongoing behavior”? Daring to dispute bogus nonfactual claims?

And Bill Chapman making another unsupported accusation. What’s new?

'another unsupported accusation'
>>> Another presumption on your part

[Bill Chapman]

Did you actually report John for being mean to you?  What a pussy!

Ah, yet another knee-jerk reaction from yet another CT booblehead..
I suggest you get the facts before running your mouth

[John Iacoletti]

Mr. Belin. Anything else?
Mr. Benavides. No; I guess that is all I can think of right now. I think there was another car that was in front of me, a red Ford, I believe. I didn't know the man, but I guess he was about 25 or 30, and he pulled over. I didn't never see him get out of his car, but when he heard the scare, I guess he was about six cars from them, and he pulled over, and I don't know if he came back there or not.

Is that supposed to be evidence that it was Tatum?

[Jack Trojan]

Ah, yet another knee-jerk reaction from yet another CT booblehead..
I suggest you get the facts before running your mouth

I don't need the facts before running my mouth if you don't provide any. Instead you refer to banned material, which should not be allowed, leaving us to speculate re your prev behavior. That might not be the case here but your vague in-your-endos re banned material left us no other choice. If you don't want anyone to speculate about sensitive material then don't bring it up. Otherwise, man up and reap what you sow.

[Jerry Freeman]

Is that supposed to be evidence that it was Tatum?

I was wondering that too.

[Charles Collins]

Lonnie Hudkins reporter, Frontline - Who was Lee Harvey Oswald @ about 29:58:

“At that time he had this little smirk on him”

[Bill Chapman]

Is that supposed to be evidence that it was Tatum?

It was evidence that there was a red car on the scene. Now, is this where you challenge Benevides' colour perception? I mean, you lot can never be too sure, now can you..

[Bill Chapman]

I don't need the facts before running my mouth if you don't provide any. Instead you refer to banned material, which should not be allowed, leaving us to speculate re your prev behavior. That might not be the case here but your vague in-your-endos re banned material left us no other choice. If you don't want anyone to speculate about sensitive material then don't bring it up. Otherwise, man up and reap what you sow.

As now-banned material, I'm loathe to repeat it.

I have screen shots of the originals.
And be advised that it was Iacoletti doing the sowing.