You would "accept" the outcome of a test? What exactly does that mean? That you would accept Oswald wore the jacket on 11.22 and discarded it in flight from the Tippit murder? My understanding is that this jacket may have been previously owned due to the laundry mark. In other words, Oswald would not be the only person to have ever worn it and nearly 60 years later it has no doubt been handled by many others who could have left their DNA. So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable. For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here. I was actually asking about the presence of Tippit's DNA on Oswald's shoes or pants. If that was found, what would that mean to you?
You would "accept" the outcome of a test? What exactly does that mean? It means exactly what I said it means.
So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable. For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here. What is really stupid (but rather common for you) is suggesting that I did suggest that, when I did no such thing. It's just another pathetic strawman. All I am concerned with is the presence of Oswald's dna on the jacket. If it's there, it means he must have worn it. If it's not there he most likely didn't wear it. Now, if a dna test on the jacket does not find Oswald's dna would you accept that he likely did not wear it? Or are you going to be evasive again?
I was actually asking about the presence of Tippit's DNA on Oswald's shoes or pants. If that was found, what would that mean to you? Then you should have asked more clearly. But the answer is a simple one. If Tippit's dna is found on Oswald's shoes or pants then it means conclusively that he was close to Tippit at 10th/Patton, as the likelihood of a dna transfer on any other occassion is extremely remote.
