Lame LN excuses

[John Iacoletti]

This doesn't change the fact that you've already admitted that Marina was shown a jacket.  C'mon.  Own it.  You can do it.

What it does at best is show that witnesses don't always know what they're looking at, and at worst that the WC misstated exhibit numbers.

There's nothing to "own", Bill.  Sorry.  How could I "admit" something that I have no knowledge of?

[Bill Brown]

What it does at beast is show that witnesses don't always know what they're looking at, and at worst that the WC misstated exhibit numbers.

There's nothing to "own", Bill.  Sorry.  How could I "admit" something that I have no knowledge of?

So now you're implying that they might not have showed Marina 162 but mistakenly called it 162 as they were presenting it to her.  Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook, I guess.

[John Iacoletti]

Whaley, in his affidavit, described the shirt Oswald was wearing, in detail.  Nothing about two jackets.  Whaley signed this.  So now what?

Not mentioning the jackets doesn't necessarily mean there were no jackets.  And even if it did, all that would mean is that we don't know which account -- if either -- was correct.

By the way, what shirt belonging to Oswald had "white spots of something on it"?

[John Iacoletti]

So now you're implying that they might not have showed Marina 162 but mistakenly called it 162 as they were presenting it to her.  Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook, I guess.

Says the guy who hasn't gotten anybody on the hook to begin with.

[John Mytton]

The inconsistency of the Davis accounts merely means that you cannot rely on their accuracy.

Yes, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable yet it's still a staple in every courtroom, you being Oswald's defence attorney will attempt to rely on this absurd generalization as above to completely discredit the two girls but that's not how it works, that's never been how it works.
Every facet of their accounts and all the eyewitness accounts would be examined and the jury would create their own narrative from ALL the evidence.
The following map is a result of this co-ordinated corroborated narrative and minor tiny discrepancies that you find oh so important, pale into insignificance when the entire event is examined. Like who cares the order of when the phone call was made or any of the pissweak things that have no bearing on the overall picture.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

Formally known as a false dichotomy fallacy.

Nice catch.

 

I stand by my original comment.



JohnM

[Bill Brown]

Actually, the white spots of something ended up as a gold stripe:

Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.

Another Bill Brown comeback failure.

Dear Dumb Ass,

I didn't say the shirt had white spots on it.  I said Whaley gave a detailed description, something he wouldn't have done if his passenger was wearing two jackets over top of the shirt.

Troll much?

[John Iacoletti]

Dear Dumb Ass,

Is that really necessary?

I didn't say the shirt had white spots on it.

No, but Whaley did. Nobody claimed you did.

  I said Whaley gave a detailed description, something he wouldn't have done if his passenger was wearing two jackets over top of the shirt.

How do you know what Whaley “wouldn’t have done”?