[Ben Holmes]

D. Axelson Wrote:<<<And according to Jim Garrison, Oswald passing the paraffin test alone would have exonerated him.>>>

Again, an opinion by a non-witness. And in 1964, Jim Garrison knew precisely nothing about the case, and could not have qualified as an expert in the significance of the presence or absence of GSR. As you may be aware, the paraffin test (also known as a "gunshot residue" or "dermal nitrate test") has been largely discredited, because it yields both false positives and false negatives. Some courts had begun to exclude such tests as early as 1959, five years before our hypothetical trial.

A very nifty trick was employed here... presuming that readers wouldn't know that this was a statement by Jim Garrison made in 1967 - as he was investigating the case, and not made in 1964 - as Axelson blatantly lied.

This is another frequent tactic of believers - they lie about facts - desperately hoping that their readers won't catch on to how they twist things. Jim Garrison in 1964 probably knew next to nothing about the case... but Jim Garrison in 1967 knew quite a bit.

What a difference three years make!

Believers can generally get away with these sorts of lies, because most people aren't as knowledgeable about the case evidence, and don't instantly spot such obvious lies.

But they don't in this forum...

P.S. It's also interesting to note the dead silence that believers generally employ about the NAA tests... which does not have the problems that the paraffin test has...