Incredible. You still don't follow the point. Again, it is not whether some rube jury might deliver a not guilty verdict in a hypothetical criminal trial based on some procedural point of law (which you haven't demonstrated). No one cares in 2021 whether Oswald might have got off on some technicality or defense attorney tactic per OJ (who was guilty). The issue is whether the evidence confirms that Oswald murdered JFK and Tippit. And there is nothing about Hill allegedly maintaining control over the pistol for a couple of hours that leads to the conclusion that it was "manipulated" as you stupidly and without any basis whatsoever suggested. Just because it is always "possible" for evidence to be planted is not a sufficient basis to rebut the evidence. The evidence is still the evidence. There is absolutely nothing in the record to suggest that the pistol or ammo was planted on Oswald. In fact, Oswald himself admitted ownership of the pistol. Even Oswald was not as dishonest as you.
Oh I understood what you were saying alright. It's BS as per usual.
And there is nothing about Hill allegedly maintaining control over the pistol for a couple of hours that leads to the conclusion that it was "manipulated" as you stupidly and without any basis whatsoever suggested. Are you always this dumb or do you only act that way on this forum? Nobody has claimed that Hill walking around with a revolver would justify the conclusion that it was manipulated. That's just another one of your long list of strawman. What needs to be proven is that the revolver Hill walked around with is the one they took of Oswald. What doesn't help (and what you conveniently forget) is that Hill took that revolver to the DPD lunchroom (if I remember correctly), told some of the guys there that it was Oswald's revolver and had them (some were not even present at the arrest) initial the weapon for a fictitious chain of custody, in much the same way it was done with the jacket. And that does suggest manipulation of evidence whether you like it or not.
Just because it is always "possible" for evidence to be planted is not a sufficient basis to rebut the evidence. Says who? Evidence and proof are two very different things. Evidence needs to be authenticated and scrutinized for it's veracity. Evidence isn't automatically valid to the extent that it's invalidity needs to be proven.
There is absolutely nothing in the record to suggest that the pistol or ammo was planted on Oswald. Nobody said a word about a revolver being planted on Oswald.
In fact, Oswald himself admitted ownership of the pistol.No he didn't. If the reports are to believed he merely admitted having
a revolver, which he said he had bought in Fort Worth. They never showed him the Smith & Wesson for identifcation.
Your making up stuff again, as per usual
