|
|
 November 01, 2010, 06:31:29 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
IF the WC was interested in the truth why in the heck were JBC's clothes laundered before they could be viewed for valuable forensic evidence?
How in the world can anyone explain this away when it violated all the rules of evidence gathering?
-------------------------
-------------------------
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
"Benavides- Saw Oswald kill Tippit, picked him out of a lineup." - Brian "Doesn't Know His Rear From His Back" Walker
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
November 01, 2010, 07:10:51 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2354
Germany
|
odd isn't it.
what evidence would get lost if you wash the clothing ? metal fragments ? the holes would not go away from washing, would they ?!
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 07:11:24 PM by Gerry_Dark »
|
-------------------------
"ich bin ein Berliner" As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login"There's none so blind as those who will not see."
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 01, 2010, 07:47:37 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
odd isn't it.
what evidence would get lost if you wash the clothing ? metal fragments ? the holes would not go away from washing, would they ?!
Good question, and I don't claim to be a forensic expert, but I would guess things like lead particles, gun powder residue, blood, tissue maybe, etc... would be helpful. Also I'm guessing the cleaning process could shrink or alter the holes in the clothes too and these would be the best way to confirm the wounds you see on the body. Perhaps more qualified or knowledgeable folks can enlighten us.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
November 01, 2010, 07:54:19 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
odd isn't it.
what evidence would get lost if you wash the clothing ? metal fragments ? the holes would not go away from washing, would they ?!
Washing would remove the residue deposited by the first strike of a bullet and render the frayed fibers surrounding a bullet hole as inconclusive means of distinguishing an entry from an exit defect. Herbert
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
November 01, 2010, 07:58:27 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3611
|
IF the WC was interested in the truth why in the heck were JBC's clothes laundered before they could be viewed for valuable forensic evidence?
How in the world can anyone explain this away when it violated all the rules of evidence gathering?
Of course Robbie is trying to make it sound like the gov't laundered the clothes in his search for the truth. They didn't. Connally's wife did. It did take them a couple of months to ask her for them which is surprising, but meaningless really. IF there was something that the clothes showed that would prove there was more then one shooter, they were have been very worried about where thoses clothes where and would not have let them leave the hospital. This topic works against the nuts as well. It does surprise me that it took such a long time for someone to want to look at the clothes, BUT unlike someone like Robbie I would have to investigate if this was normal for the time. If in 1963 clothes in crime scenes were examined like they would be today.
-------------------------
-------------------------
What is silly is thinking that two turns that reduced the speed of the car to 8-11 m.p.h. is no big deal when motorcades are suppose to keep a 44 m.p.h. speed..R Caprio
LHO had poor hand-eye coordination and proof of this is seen in the fact he couldn't drive an automobile-- R Caprio
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
November 01, 2010, 08:06:45 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
IF the WC was interested in the truth why in the heck were JBC's clothes laundered before they could be viewed for valuable forensic evidence?
How in the world can anyone explain this away when it violated all the rules of evidence gathering?
Of course Robbie is trying to make it sound like the gov't laundered the clothes in his search for the truth. They didn't. Connally's wife did. It did take them a couple of months to ask her for them which is surprising, but meaningless really. IF there was something that the clothes showed that would prove there was more then one shooter, they were have been very worried about where thoses clothes where and would not have let them leave the hospital. This topic works against the nuts as well. It does surprise me that it took such a long time for someone to want to look at the clothes, BUT unlike someone like Robbie I would have to investigate if this was normal for the time. If in 1963 clothes in crime scenes were examined like they would be today. So you are saying she rushed out and had his clothes WITH BULLET HOLES IN THEM laundered? Why not cite for this claim of yours Brianie? Let's see her words saying this.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
November 01, 2010, 08:51:13 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3611
|
IF the WC was interested in the truth why in the heck were JBC's clothes laundered before they could be viewed for valuable forensic evidence?
How in the world can anyone explain this away when it violated all the rules of evidence gathering?
Of course Robbie is trying to make it sound like the gov't laundered the clothes in his search for the truth. They didn't. Connally's wife did. It did take them a couple of months to ask her for them which is surprising, but meaningless really. IF there was something that the clothes showed that would prove there was more then one shooter, they were have been very worried about where thoses clothes where and would not have let them leave the hospital. This topic works against the nuts as well. It does surprise me that it took such a long time for someone to want to look at the clothes, BUT unlike someone like Robbie I would have to investigate if this was normal for the time. If in 1963 clothes in crime scenes were examined like they would be today. So you are saying she rushed out and had his clothes WITH BULLET HOLES IN THEM laundered? Why not cite for this claim of yours Brianie? Let's see her words saying this. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginI don't know how to post it. Its from a 1966 interview in life magazine. I tried to post it here, probably didn't go through. I hate computers.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
November 01, 2010, 09:53:06 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3611
|
IF the WC was interested in the truth why in the heck were JBC's clothes laundered before they could be viewed for valuable forensic evidence?
How in the world can anyone explain this away when it violated all the rules of evidence gathering?
Of course Robbie is trying to make it sound like the gov't laundered the clothes in his search for the truth. They didn't. Connally's wife did. It did take them a couple of months to ask her for them which is surprising, but meaningless really. IF there was something that the clothes showed that would prove there was more then one shooter, they were have been very worried about where thoses clothes where and would not have let them leave the hospital. This topic works against the nuts as well. It does surprise me that it took such a long time for someone to want to look at the clothes, BUT unlike someone like Robbie I would have to investigate if this was normal for the time. If in 1963 clothes in crime scenes were examined like they would be today. So you are saying she rushed out and had his clothes WITH BULLET HOLES IN THEM laundered? Why not cite for this claim of yours Brianie? Let's see her words saying this. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginI don't know how to post it. Its from a 1966 interview in life magazine. I tried to post it here, probably didn't go through. I hate computers. What Walker doesn't tell you is that his own link shows that Connally's wife asked the FBI and SS if they wanted to analyze the jacket, which remained locked up in a Congressman's closet for 2 months (2 months!), yet "nobody seemed interested (Mrs. Connally's words). The jacket was smeared with flesh and blood. Why weren't they interested in examining what was in that flesh? Or in the jacket fibers? Another very important point. Both Caprio and Walker are under the false impression that the clothes were "laundered." But Mrs. Connally said (according to Walker's link) that she simply soaked it in cold water to preserve it. The WC said the jacket was useless because it had been "laundered." Soaking is laundered. I already said I was surprised they didn't to look at the clothes for all that time. And once again this works against the CT. IF they thought there was any proof on the cloths that would prove the one shooter fact wrong, they sure would have more interest in the clothes. Wouldn't you agree?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
November 02, 2010, 02:00:17 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6711
|
odd isn't it.
what evidence would get lost if you wash the clothing ? metal fragments ? the holes would not go away from washing, would they ?!
Sure tiny metal fragments. So what? Not like they'd lose more from the clothing than the tiny silver missing from CE 399. And most of them may have been deposited from the head shot. The holes don't go away. Maybe copper deposited at the hole by the transit of a copper jacketed bullet. Maybe the holes get distorted during the process. Maybe the fibers lose their orientation bent in or bent out.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
November 02, 2010, 02:03:39 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6711
|
odd isn't it.
what evidence would get lost if you wash the clothing ? metal fragments ? the holes would not go away from washing, would they ?!
Good question, and I don't claim to be a forensic expert, but I would guess things like lead particles, gun powder residue, blood, tissue maybe, etc... would be helpful. Also I'm guessing the cleaning process could shrink or alter the holes in the clothes too and these would be the best way to confirm the wounds you see on the body. Perhaps more qualified or knowledgeable folks can enlighten us. Gun powder residue?? Is this a driver did it theory? The tip of the gun would need to be only a couple of inches away. The partition would prevent that. Blood, tissue, not important.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
November 02, 2010, 02:07:01 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6711
|
IF the WC was interested in the truth why in the heck were JBC's clothes laundered before they could be viewed for valuable forensic evidence?
How in the world can anyone explain this away when it violated all the rules of evidence gathering?
Of course Robbie is trying to make it sound like the gov't laundered the clothes in his search for the truth. They didn't. Connally's wife did. It did take them a couple of months to ask her for them which is surprising, but meaningless really. IF there was something that the clothes showed that would prove there was more then one shooter, they were have been very worried about where thoses clothes where and would not have let them leave the hospital. This topic works against the nuts as well. It does surprise me that it took such a long time for someone to want to look at the clothes, BUT unlike someone like Robbie I would have to investigate if this was normal for the time. If in 1963 clothes in crime scenes were examined like they would be today. Well, you see to think that it is common police practice to allow the family to take evidence from a crime home. A guy's wife is shot to death and you think he should be allowed to take the gun home and clean it.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
|
