RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[John Iacoletti]

Maybe Pinkston talked to Lt. Day at a time on Nov. 22 which was before Day had time to perform the lift.

Maybe Day changed his story after Nov. 22.

[David Von Pein]

Maybe Day changed his story after Nov. 22.

To quote Martin Weidmann from early this morning (EDT):

Wishful thinking! Your opinion isn't evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

But your “maybe Pinkston is talking about the palmprint” and “maybe Day told Pinkston this before he made the lift” somehow are evidence?

[David Von Pein]

But your “maybe Pinkston is talking about the palmprint” and “maybe Day told Pinkston this before he made the lift” somehow are evidence?

Did I say that my opinion was "evidence"?

[John Iacoletti]

Did I say that my opinion was "evidence"?

Yes. You presented the Pinkston memo as evidence that the partial palmprint existed on Nov. 22.

And I didn’t say my “maybe” was evidence. It was a response to your “maybe”. Or are you the only one who gets to “maybe”?

[Martin Weidmann]

Neither is yours.

Maybe Pinkston talked to Lt. Day at a time on Nov. 22 which was before Day had time to perform the lift.

Is that not even remotely possible in your world? Or am I merely showing my "desperation" yet again?

Is that not even remotely possible in your world? Or am I merely showing my "desperation" yet again?

In this case anything is possible, but I wasn't the one who presented Pinkston's memo as evidence. That was you.

I also did not argue that the memo was "clearly wrong" about the print not being lifted. That was also you

And I wasn't the one who tried to argue that the memo must be talking about the palmprint, because the person who wrote the memo said "print" instead of "prints". That again was you.

Nor am I the one who is desperate to explain (with a "maybe") the discrepancy between what the memo said and what Day actually told the WC in his testimony. That is you too.

Bottom line is that something which is "remotely possible" and needs to be explained with a "maybe" is utterly inconclusive and evidence of absolutely nothing.

So far, you haven't presented anything conclusive to show that Pinkston's memo was indeed talking about the palmprint.

[Dan O'meara]

I don't know if this clears anything up.
It appears Pinkston was interviewing Day some time after he had returned to the TSBD building on the day of the assassination.
I assume Day is referring to a print he had seen on the rifle during his processing of the rifle "in situ" - he is not referring to a palm print as he was yet to return to the TSBD and disassemble the rifle.

As Martin points out, any trace of the prints noticed on the rifle disappeared by the time the rifle reached the FBI lab.
Has anyone ever given a reasonable explanation as to how this might have happened.

[Alan Ford]

I don't know if this clears anything up.
It appears Pinkston was interviewing Day some time after he had returned to the TSBD building on the day of the assassination.
I assume Day is referring to a print he had seen on the rifle during his processing of the rifle "in situ" - he is not referring to a palm print as he was yet to return to the TSBD and disassemble the rifle.

?