Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[John Iacoletti]

@Newbies
FMJ ammo is designed to resist damage while passing through flesh. See where RoboCall leaves that flesh designation out. Watch out for him and practically every other CTer. They twist everything; either from stupidity or just plain disingenuousness.

Are you claiming that CE399 only hit flesh?  Interesting...

[John Iacoletti]

Another easy one. CE399 was travelling at a much lower rate-of-speed as compared to the head shot bullet velocity... thus retaining its front-end structural integrity.

...and you know this how?

[John Iacoletti]

What's this latest drivel of yours got to do with reality?

Tell us why anyone would need to measure the speed of each missile in order to conclude that CE399 would certainly lose velocity by dint of passing through two clothed bodies, while the head shot missile had an open flight path to the intended target

So your evidence for CE399 not exploding is that it was travelling at a much lower rate-of-speed, and your evidence that it was travelling at a much lower rate-of-speed is that it didn't explode.  Is that about right?

What is your evidence that CE399 "passed through two clothed bodies"?

[Andrew Mason]

In your example, there is no reasonable doubt that the accused was "driving a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light", right?  And there's no reasonable doubt that a video exists of him drinking with the deceased earlier in the evening, right (although I'm not sure how that's relevant unless he claimed to not know the victim at all, or he had an alibi that was contradicted by the video)?

In my scenario, yes. But it is not required. At some point you have to arrest the accused.  Let's call him "Dave".  There could have be a friend who said he saw his friend Dave (whom he knew) driving his red pickup truck and noticed that the truck had a damaged right tail light.  You could question whether he was correct.  And there could be doubt that the video shows "Dave" with the accused - it could be poor resolution and just show a guy with a beard who could be Dave.  It doesn't matter if you have enough pieces of independent evidence.

If there is reasonable doubt of these things, then it's a whole different conversation.

Not at all. First of all, it is a mistake to apply reasonable doubt to a piece of evidence.  Say you have a picture of Dave killing the victim. Would you say "oh, it is just a digital picture and show the jury one pixel at a time and ask: does this look like Dave?". The jury  would say, "no it doesn't but when you put them all together I see Dave killing the victim".  That is an extreme example but it is kind of how evidence works.

Instead, let's say for example that the cops claimed he was arrested "driving a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light", but they lost the truck, or they produce a photo of the truck but it doesn't have a broken tail-light.  Or there are witnesses to the arrest who say he was arrested in a blue car...

It all depends on what the other evidence shows.  But these things really don't happen that way.  When someone drives away in a red truck, two minutes later they are likely still in the red truck.  If a person is stopped in the blue truck, they are probably not going to fit the description because they are not the culprit.  You can make up anything you want and say "what if a guy fitting the exact description is stopped but he is in a blue truck" but that is very unlikely to actually occur.   

[John Iacoletti]

Say you have a picture of Dave killing the victim. Would you say "oh, it is just a digital picture and show the jury one pixel at a time and ask: does this look like Dave?". The jury  would say, "no it doesn't but when you put them all together I see Dave killing the victim".  That is an extreme example but it is kind of how evidence works.

It's not just extreme, it's a faulty analogy.  A more appropriate analogy is me holding up a bunch of random pixels and just claiming that they combine to form the picture of Dave killing the victim.  Then losing the pixels.

  You can make up anything you want and say "what if a guy fitting the exact description is stopped but he is in a blue truck" but that is very unlikely to actually occur.   

No, what I'm saying is that you have 4 witnesses.  One says yellow bus, one says blue car, one says red truck, and one says orange SUV.  The prosecutor says well, the police said they arrested a guy in a red truck, so obviously the other 3 were mistaken.

[Andrew Mason]

It's not just extreme, it's a faulty analogy.  A more appropriate analogy is me holding up a bunch of random pixels and just claiming that they combine to form the picture of Dave killing the victim.  Then losing the pixels.

Then you aren't going to be able to present the pixels as evidence. What evidence was lost?

No, what I'm saying is that you have 4 witnesses.  One says yellow bus, one says blue car, one says red truck, and one says orange SUV.  The prosecutor says well, the police said they arrested a guy in a red truck, so obviously the other 3 were mistaken.

If you have 4 witnesses and all saying 4 different things, there may be a much better chance that they are deliberately lying and making it up than honestly relating what they saw. Honest witnesses are just not that wildly different in recalling events. As I said, you can make up anything. It doesn't mean it happens in real life.

[John Iacoletti]

Then you aren't going to be able to present the pixels as evidence. What evidence was lost?

Arjan Hut had a thread on the old forum called "Erasing the past to protect a fairytale" in which he compiled hundreds of examples of evidence that should exist but for whatever reason is now "missing".  He's resurrected the list on another forum.  But to give you a few examples, the Klein's microfilm, the negative for the CE133A backyard photo, and the alleged prints on the CE142 large paper bag.

If you have 4 witnesses and all saying 4 different things, there may be a much better chance that they are deliberately lying and making it up than honestly relating what they saw. Honest witnesses are just not that wildly different in recalling events. As I said, you can make up anything. It doesn't mean it happens in real life.

Ok, so what does it mean if different witnesses near say a police officer shooting describe a man wearing a white jacket, a dark wool coat, a long coat, a brown jacket, a gray jacket, and a tan jacket?