The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)

[John Iacoletti]

Marina testified that Lee had never before left his wedding ring behind, much less in that special little cup.

Is that supposed to magically make it evidence of murder?

She also testified that he had left behind some $170 in a dresser drawer.

Is that also supposed to be evidence of murder? Only if you don’t have actual evidence.

Can you conjure up some really creative reason as to why he would have done those two things on that particular morning?

And if I don’t want to make up a “creative” reason, then your creative reason automatically wins and becomes evidence?

[Tom Mahon]

Is that supposed to magically make it evidence of murder?

Is that also supposed to be evidence of murder? Only if you don’t have actual evidence.

And if I don’t want to make up a “creative” reason, then your creative reason automatically wins and becomes evidence?

Unless Marina was lying because . . . gasp . . . she was working for the evil, evil FBI or the evil, evil CIA (it's interesting that KGB true defector Pyotr Deriabin said she had to be at least a low-level KGB informant to be permitted to marry her handsome Prince Charming and leave the USSR with him), the little self-described Marxist's leaving his wedding ring and 95% of his life savings behind is circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt about what he's going to try to do a few hours later.

[John Iacoletti]

Marina made so many contradictory statements that the HSCA compiled a 29 page document listing them.  They can't all be true.  "Marina said so" is a really lousy reason to believe anything.

"I think leaving a wedding ring behind is evidence of murder" is even a more ridiculous argument.

[Tom Mahon]

Marina made so many contradictory statements that the HSCA compiled a 29 page document listing them.  They can't all be true.  "Marina said so" is a really lousy reason to believe anything.

"I think leaving a wedding ring behind is evidence of murder" is even a more ridiculous argument.

I think leaving behind one's wedding ring and 95% of one's meager life savings a few hours before one's short-rifle is found hidden with one's fingerprints on it in one's seven-story, on-the-motorcade-route, place of work is consciousness-of-guilt-in-advance, especially since the two larger bullet fragments found in the limo and the practically-whole bullet found in Parkland Hospital were matched to said short-rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle in the world.

[John Iacoletti]

I think leaving behind one's wedding ring and 95% of one's meager life savings a few hours before one's short-rifle is found hidden with one's fingerprints on it in one's seven-story, on-the-motorcade-route, place of work is consciousness-of-guilt-in-advance

Of course you do.  Especially when you don't have any real evidence.

Correction: some fingerprints were found near the trigger guard that were unsuitable for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint was received by the FBI a week later on an index card after they found no other prints on the rifle.

, especially since the two larger bullet fragments found in the limo

You mean the fragments allegedly found by a navy corpman and a secret service agent tampering with an unsecured crime scene before it could be properly processed, not photographed in place and with no valid contemporaneously documented chain of custody?

and the practically-whole bullet found in Parkland Hospital

You mean the bullet allegedly found on an unrelated stretcher, also with no valid contemporaneously documented chain of custody?

were matched to said short-rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle in the world.

You mean the short rifle you cannot prove killed anybody or was ever in the possession of your favorite suspect?

[Richard Smith]

I think leaving behind one's wedding ring and 95% of one's meager life savings a few hours before one's short-rifle is found hidden with one's fingerprints on it in one's seven-story, on-the-motorcade-route, place of work is consciousness-of-guilt-in-advance, especially since the two larger bullet fragments found in the limo and the practically-whole bullet found in Parkland Hospital were matched to said short-rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle in the world.

You are being taken down the rabbit hole by a contrarian.  It's hopeless.  Here is how it goes.  Every piece of evidence is examined in a vacuum as though it can't be judged in the full context of all the facts and evidence.  So if Oswald makes an unexpected trip to the Paine residence (where he kept his rifle) and left his wedding ring for the first and only time in his marriage along with a large amount of money, this can be dismissed out of hand by a contrarian as having no relevance toward proving Oswald was the assassin.  Other men have left taken off their wedding rings and left money with their wife who didn't assassinate the president.  But how many men who left their wedding rings and cash with their wives that morning worked in the very building from which shots were fired?  How many carried a long bag to work?  How many left their prints on the SN boxes?  How many left their rifle on the floor from which the shots were fired?  How many fled the TSBD, got a gun, and killed a pistol officer?  And on and on.  But a lazy contrarian can just ignore all the surrounding circumstances and just dismiss every individual piece of evidence with LOL. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You are being taken down the rabbit hole by a contrarian.  It's hopeless.  Here is how it goes.  Every piece of evidence is examined in a vacuum as though it can't be judged in the full context of all the facts and evidence.  So if Oswald makes an unexpected trip to the Paine residence (where he kept his rifle) and left his wedding ring for the first and only time in his marriage along with a large amount of money, this can be dismissed out of hand by a contrarian as having no relevance toward proving Oswald was the assassin.  Other men have left taken off their wedding rings and left money with their wife who didn't assassinate the president.  But how many men who left their wedding rings and cash with their wives that morning worked in the very building from which shots were fired?  How many carried a long bag to work?  How many left their prints on the SN boxes?  How many left their rifle on the floor from which the shots were fired?  How many fled the TSBD, got a gun, and killed a pistol officer?  And on and on.  But a lazy contrarian can just ignore all the surrounding circumstances and just dismiss every individual piece of evidence with LOL.

Yes, but he's not a contrarian, someone arguing just for the joy of arguing and for no other purpose. That's a contrarian to me. He has a purpose: he's an Oswald defender. It's a weird Oswald-as-Dreyfus view.

Of course no one looks at an event, reconstructs it, by looking at one piece of information alone. And ignoring all of the other pieces. You look at them in their totality and not as isolated blocks. If you applied this type of thinking to any other event then it would be impossible to come to any conclusion as to what happened. Everything saying "X" occurred can be isolated and dismissed as just random events. Poof, event "X" disappears, it never happens.

[John Iacoletti]

[blah blah blah]

LOL