RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[David Von Pein]

And thank you for implicity confirming that we can not rely on what any law enforcement officer failed to mention in their day one report.... 

It depends on what the evidence is and how important it is.

One of the things you mentioned on your four-item list in your last post is definitely wrong.....because Lieutenant Day did report that he "had been successful in raising a partial latent print" off of the Carcano rifle. And Lt. Day said that on 11/22/63, as confirmed here.

The next-most-important item on your previous list would be the Odum/Tomlinson/FD-302 matter, which I discussed years ago here.

[Martin Weidmann]

It depends on what the evidence is and how important it is.

One of the things you mentioned on your four-item list in your last post is definitely wrong.....because Lieutenant Day did report that he "had been successful in raising a partial latent print" off of the Carcano rifle. And Lt. Day said that on 11/22/63, as confirmed here.

The next-most-important item on your previous list would be the Odum/Tomlinson/FD-302 matter, which I discussed years ago here.

Your desperation is obvious.

[David Von Pein]

Your desperation is obvious.

Your lack of ability to put things in proper context is duly noted.

[John Iacoletti]

One of the things you mentioned on your four-item list in your last post is definitely wrong.....because Lieutenant Day did report that he "had been successful in raising a partial latent print" off of the Carcano rifle. And Lt. Day said that on 11/22/63, as confirmed here.

Uh, Dave, this memo is talking about a print he didn’t lift.

The next-most-important item on your previous list would be the Odum/Tomlinson/FD-302 matter, which I discussed years ago here.

And by “discussed”, you just mean trotting out the same old lame excuse, “Odum must have forgotten”.

[John Iacoletti]

Your lack of ability to put things in proper context is duly noted.

“Proper context” defined as agreeing with Dave’s assumptions.

[Martin Weidmann]

Your lack of ability to put things in proper context is duly noted.

Do you even know what the words "proper context" mean.

Out of four things I have mentioned you only reply to two and neither have any merit. As John pointed out, Day said that he had not lifted a print (which he claimed was there, but the FBI could not find it) and the Odum "excuse" is just silly.

All you have shown here is your cherry picking of the evidence you like and what you don't like is what Landis has said. It is pathetic....

[David Von Pein]

...what you don't like is what Landis has said.

Mr. Landis has discredited himself, via his archived newspaper interviews from 1983 and 1988 (plus his comments that appear in the 2010 book "The Kennedy Detail"), as discussed in detail here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/06/paul-landis.html

[Martin Weidmann]

Mr. Landis has discredited himself, via his archived newspaper interviews from 1983 and 1988 (plus his comments that appear in the 2010 book "The Kennedy Detail"), as discussed in detail here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/06/paul-landis.html

Says the guy who has discredited himself a long time ago as a die hard propagandist who has no interest in the truth, whatsoever.

Case in point; VP claims that Day did mention the palm print he allegedly lifted from the rifle and he produces a FBI document in which it actually says that Day did not lift a print at all.
A honest person would admit that he misrepresented the facts, but VP simply ignores that he has been caught in a lie and moves on.