JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Lack Of Damage To CE-399
Jon Banks:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on January 27, 2019, 05:41:47 PM ---Let's examine what we know;
1. General Walker is on record with his firm denial that the bullet now in evidence as the Walker bullet is not the one he saw and held after it was taken out of the wall. Several contemporary police reports describe a bullet which is clearly different that the one now knowns as the Walker bullet.
2. Late Friday evening, an FBI team arrives at the Secret Service garage to examine the limo and they are given bullet fragments which were allegedly already found in (and removed from) the car.
3. The bullet now known as CE399 does not have a credible chain of custody until it arrives at the FBI lab, where it's evidentiary life starts when SA Todd marks a bullet given to him by Secret Service Chief Rowley. The first four men to handle the bullet found at Parkland Hospital (Tomlinson, Wright, Johnson and Rowley) are unable to identify CE399 as the bullet they had handled. In a memo (included in CE2011) an unidentified FBI officers claims that SA Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright, but the evidence suggests that never happened.
4. A wallet was taken from Oswald by Paul Bentley in the car on the way to the police station. In a television interview, the next day, Bentley claims he found a drivers license and credit card in the wallet. He, nor any of the three other officers in the car, ever say a word about finding a Hidell ID in the wallet. Only at the police station where Detective Rose had just started working a wallet shows up with a Hidell ID in it. Not one contempory DPD report exists from those early days in which there is any mention of a Hidell ID being found in Oswald's wallet.
5. At the Texas Theater, Detective Hill is given a revolver after Oswald's arrest. He allegedly carries that revolver on him for nearly two hours before presenting it to several officers in the lunchroom of the police station. Those officers have no way of knowing if this is the same revolver that was taken from Oswald, yet they initial it anyway.
6. A unidentified police officers calls in that a white jacket was found under a car in a carpark near the Tippit murder scene. He passes that jacket to Westbrook who in turn gives it to yet another unidentified officer. The jacket then disappears and somehow shows up, some two hours later in the possession of Westbrook who places it in the evidence locker after it was also initialed by officers who never handled the jacket. But now the jacket is suddenly grey. Strangely enough, Buell Frazier saw Oswald wear a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening...?.
7. Oswald is supposed to have taken the bus, after leaving the TSBD.... It took the DPD several hours to find a bus transfer in Oswald's shirt! The same goes for the bullets that Oswald is supposed to have had in his pockets.
8. A paper bag is allegedly found at the TSBD, but there is no photo of it in situ, despite the fact that there is a photo of a DPD officer looking at the area where bag was allegedly found.
The list goes on and on and on..... Move along, nothing to see here ;D
--- End quote ---
9. No documentation proving that Oswald?s palm print was found on the rifle before the FBI Lab looked at it, found no Prints, and sent it back to Dallas.
I?ll also add that most of the problems with the First Day evidence are due to either errors or malice by members of the Dallas PD while the FBI seems to have destroyed, omitted, and manipulated evidence after Day 1.
Walt Cakebread:
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on January 27, 2019, 06:37:46 PM ---[tr [/t]
Sitzman was roughly looking SE at the moment of the headshot. To see the view above, she merely had to turn her head to face roughly SW. In filming, Zapruder had no problem swinging his camera that way.
If there had been a shot from the picket fence, she would have heard it. She not only didn't hear a shot (recall that Holland claimed to have heard a noise from there as well) but she failed to see a puff of smoke (it would have been in her field of vision even if she kept her head facing SW). Nor did she see any figures present or moving behind the fence.
--- End quote ---
she failed to see a puff of smoke (it would have been in her field of vision even if she kept her head facing SW)
This would depend on the background .....From Sam Holland's point the background would have been dark and the light colored smoke would have been visible.....
The light colored concrete of the overpass or sky, in the background would have made the smoke difficult to see, and the smoke could easily have gone unnoticed.....
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on January 27, 2019, 05:07:53 PM ---
It is not an assumption that Tomlinson found CE399.
Wrong. It is not an assumption that Tomlinson found a bullet. It is a massive assumption to say that bullet is the one now in evidence as CE399.
It is based on evidence.
No it isn't. There isn't a shred of evidence that shows the bullet found by Tomlinson is the same one that is now in evidence as CE399.
--- End quote ---
There is certainly evidence that CE399 was the bullet found by Tomlinson. You just don't think it is reliable because you think that someone switched the bullet withd CE399. You have no evidence or a rational theory of why someone would do that let alone evidence that someone did.
--- Quote ---The only assumption is that no one in the chain is lying and was part of a conspiracy to falsify evidence. Somehow you think it is reasonable to assume that someone was lying and was part of a conspiracy. That is not reasonable.
--- End quote ---
I disagree. It is perfectly reasonable. The five people provided mutually consistent statements and had no reason to lie. This whole discussion is based on acceptance of Liam Kelly's statement . Since you reject it we don't really have anything to discuss here.
--- Quote ---How in the world is assuming that nobody was lying more reasonable than assuming that someone was lying? Both are assumptions
--- End quote ---
It is not an assumption. It is an inference based on evidence. We can conclude that they are not part of a conspiracy because there is no evidence of a conspiracy. If you see horse hoof prints in the mud do you conclude that a zebra made them? Juries understand this. I am not sure why you do not.
Jerry Freeman:
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on January 26, 2019, 02:30:15 PM --- Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.
--- End quote ---
If Mr Holland were the only claim for a grassy knoll gunman, I might be inclined to dismiss him too. However, through the years afterward ...
About 40 witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy claimed either to have heard gunshots from the grassy knoll in the northwest corner of Dealey Plaza, or to have seen smoke or smelled gunpowder in that area. Snipers are trained to vanish. Also the parking lot was completely full of cars that day. The 40 witnesses were just those who came forward with the claim. Many dozens ran to the area after the shots as we all know.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on January 27, 2019, 08:31:53 PM ---There is certainly evidence that CE399 was the bullet found by Tomlinson. You just don't think it is reliable because you think that someone switched the bullet withd CE399. You have no evidence or a rational theory of why someone would do that let alone evidence that someone did.
I disagree. It is perfectly reasonable. The five people provided mutually consistent statements and had no reason to lie. This whole discussion is based on acceptance of Liam Kelly's statement . Since you reject it we don't really have anything to discuss here.
It is not an assumption. It is an inference based on evidence. We can conclude that they are not part of a conspiracy because there is no evidence of a conspiracy. If you see horse hoof prints in the mud do you conclude that a zebra made them? Juries understand this. I am not sure why you do not.
--- End quote ---
There is certainly evidence that CE399 was the bullet found by Tomlinson.
Ok, I'll bite? please provide that evidence.
You just don't think it is reliable because you think that someone switched the bullet withd CE399.
Why do you presume to know what I think? And you are wrong as well. If you mean by "evidence" the seriously flawed chain of custody, then I don't think it's reliable simply because it is not reliable! I don't know if someone switched the bullet with CE399. I just know it is possible, which is why I need a sound chain of custody to eliminate that possibility. That's what a chain of custody is for!
You have no evidence or a rational theory of why someone would do that let alone evidence that someone did.
Why someone would do it is an easy question to answer; it would be done to frame someone. The real question that needs to be asked is no why it happened, but if it happened. The problem is that there is enough circumstantial evidence to make a case of possible evidence tampering, but perhaps you would just call it a coincidence of unintentional errors.....
I disagree. It is perfectly reasonable. The five people provided mutually consistent statements and had no reason to lie
As far as the first four goes; they did not lie? all they said was that they handled a bullet that was found at Parkland and there was no reason to lie about that. It's just that none of those four said anything or could say anything about the bullet now in evidence as CE399 because all four failed to identify it. Now, as for number five.... that's a whole other story....
It is not an assumption. It is an inference based on evidence.
An inference is is nothing more than a conclusion based on reasoning. So is an assumption!
We can conclude that they are not part of a conspiracy because there is no evidence of a conspiracy.
So absence of evidence is evidence of absence to you? Really?
If you see horse hoof prints in the mud do you conclude that a zebra made them?
I'm not sure what this superficial comment has to do with anything, but if you can do it so can I;
If you wake up and look outside and the whole street is wet, do you conclude that it rained during the night or do you leave open the possibility that a water main has broken in your street?
Juries understand this. I am not sure why you do not.
Yes indeed. Juries like simple explanations. The trouble is that they are not always the correct ones.....
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version