When the SN was built

[Alan Ford]

This is just the old impossible standard of proof argument.  Day confirms that he found Oswald's print on the rifle.   You just dismiss this by suggesting that it is possible that he lied.

Nope, Mr. Weidmann has queried the integrity of Lt. Day's claim by citing Agent Drain's belief that this claim is not to be trusted

 

[Charles Collins]

V. weak sauce, Mr. Collins.........

Mrs. Rowland is not Mr. Rowland

Mr. Edwards is referring to a later point in time

Mr. Brennan is referring to a later point in time

 

Mrs. Rowland's testimony is relevant regardless of whether you like it or not. You cannot just dismiss it because "she isn't Mr. Rowland". She was with him at the time and discussed what he saw with him at that time.

Mr. Edwards time frame is only a few minutes later in time. What is significant is that he said he didn't see anyone on the fifth floor at that time. However we have solid evidence that there was three men looking out the fifth floor windows directly below the sniper's nest (and one set of windows west). It shows that if Mr. Edwards could be mistaken, then so could Mr. Rowland.

Mr Brennan said he arrived as the epileptic event was happening. And he said he observed the sniper in the window very soon afterward and well before the motorcade arrived. So, I don't think it was much later at all.

[Alan Ford]

Mrs. Rowland's testimony is relevant regardless of whether you like it or not. You cannot just dismiss it because "she isn't Mr. Rowland". She was with him at the time and discussed what he saw with him at that time.

She discussed with him the thing he considered as worthy of remark: an armed man. You've got nothing here

Mr. Edwards time frame is only a few minutes later in time. What is significant is that he said he didn't see anyone on the fifth floor at that time. However we have solid evidence that there was three men looking out the fifth floor windows directly below the sniper's nest (and one set of windows west). It shows that if Mr. Edwards could be mistaken, then so could Mr. Rowland.

Mr Brennan said he arrived as the epileptic event was happening. And he said he observed the sniper in the window very soon afterward and well before the motorcade arrived. So, I don't think it was much later at all.

Another nice try, Mr. Collins, but I'm afraid you need to re-read those portions of Mr. Rowland's testimony pertaining to the times he saw the 'elderly Negro' at the SN window. You've got nothing here either

 

[Charles Collins]

She discussed with him the thing he considered as worthy of remark: an armed man. You've got nothing here

Another nice try, Mr. Collins, but I'm afraid you need to re-read those portions of Mr. Rowland's testimony pertaining to the times he saw the 'elderly Negro' at the SN window. You've got nothing here either

 

“However much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing.” - George Orwell

[Alan Ford]

“However much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing.” - George Orwell

Mr. Orwell is right! (And thanks for folding)

[John Iacoletti]

 


Now you think that you have become a mind reader?   

Why else would you postulate that Rowland mistook 3 black men on a different floor at a different time for a single black man in the "sniper's nest" at 12:15?

[John Iacoletti]

It is simply a fact that Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave his prints on the long bag found next to the SN.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave a print on the rifle.  Imagine the terrible luck that would be involved if Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to touch these objects and leave identifiable prints because he "worked there."

Is this rhetoric supposed to constitute evidence of murder?  P.S. "long bag found next to the SN". LOL. "Leave a print on the rifle". LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

This is just the old impossible standard of proof argument.

No, it's the old "Richard" will swallow any unverifiable claim argument.

Day confirms that he found Oswald's print on the rifle.   You just dismiss this by suggesting that it is possible that he lied.  You make no effort whatsoever to support this claim.  It would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime if a defense could be raised that there is doubt because it is merely possible that the police are lying about the evidence.

If "cop said so" is good enough, then why are evidence handling and chain of custody procedures even a thing at all?