Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Martin Weidmann]

So you are saying that it could be that Todd was lying.  Which proves my point that the only alternative to CE399 being the bullet found by Tomlinson is one in which someone was lying. 

So, again, what reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?

Your question, to which I responded, was; "how does Todd's verification NOT verify that the bullet that Rowley received from Johnson was CE399 (unless Rowley was lying and substituted another bullet)?"

Do you now agree that Todd's verification does not automatically verify anything other than that he received a bullet from Rowley? 

As for the "reliable knowledge" question, there are two sides to that coin;

Do you have reliable knowledge that nobody was lying?

Can a circumstantial case of possible evidence tampering be made? Yes...IMO it can.

Will that case ever be conclusive? Based on the evidence now available, the honest answer would be no, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth...

[Chris Bristow]

The point has been made that Sitzman was a better witness than Holland because of her elevated position and close proximity to the fence. I think there is one relative fact missing here.
  Both were looking at the limo during the head shot. The shooters position behind the fence was only 10 to 15 degrees off of Holland's line of sight. But from Sitzman's position the shooter would be about 120 degrees away from her line of sight to the limo and the puff of smoke about 90 degrees away
 The human field of vision is about 195 degrees. So looking straight at the limo would allow Stitzman to see about 100 degrees to her right. She could have easily missed the initial event.
 Found this quote on Sitzman's Wiki page but can't trust it without verifying it. Anyone familiar with this statement?

"Sitzman stated, "I have no qualms saying that I'm almost sure that there was someone behind the fence or in that area up there [near the fence], but I'm just as sure that they had silencers because there was no sound."[14]"

 

[Andrew Mason]

Your question, to which I responded, was; "how does Todd's verification NOT verify that the bullet that Rowley received from Johnson was CE399 (unless Rowley was lying and substituted another bullet)?"

Do you now agree that Todd's verification does not automatically verify anything other than that he received a bullet from Rowley? 

By itself it establishes that Rowley had possession of CE399 unless Todd was lying and he (Todd) switched the bullet he received from Rowley with CE399.

As for the "reliable knowledge" question, there are two sides to that coin;

Do you have reliable knowledge that nobody was lying?

According to your statement of principle, It isn't needed.
It was you who said you should presume someone to be truthful unless there is 'reliable knowledge' that he is lying.

Can a circumstantial case of possible evidence tampering be made? Yes...IMO it can.

Will that case ever be conclusive? Based on the evidence now available, the honest answer would be no, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth...

So who was lying? And what is the 'reliable knowledge' that you have of such lying?

[Martin Weidmann]

By itself it establishes that Rowley had possession of CE399 unless Todd was lying and he (Todd) switched the bullet he received from Rowley with CE399.
According to your statement of principle, It isn't needed.
It was you who said you should presume someone to be truthful unless there is 'reliable knowledge' that he is lying.
So who was lying? And what is the 'reliable knowledge' that you have of such lying?

By itself it establishes that Rowley had possession of CE399 unless Todd was lying and he (Todd) switched the bullet he received from Rowley with CE399.

Which is exactly why your previous argument, down the line to Tomlinson, was not sound.

According to your statement of principle, It isn't needed.
It was you who said you should presume someone to be truthful unless there is 'reliable knowledge' that he is lying. 

I don't recall ever making such a statement.

So who was lying? And what is the 'reliable knowledge' that you have of such lying?

Why do you repeat the same question when it has already been answered?

[Andrew Mason]

WCC 6.5mm bullets are actually 3 cm long. But you're correct in acknowledging that in order to make a 3 cm wound in Connally's back it would have had to have been tumbling. I'll take that as your use of Olivier's testimony as being inoperative.

Why would you conclude that? I have already shown that in order to make a 3cm elliptical entrance wound the bullet just has to strike at an angle of about 75 degrees.

[Andrew Mason]

By itself it establishes that Rowley had possession of CE399 unless Todd was lying and he (Todd) switched the bullet he received from Rowley with CE399.

Which is exactly why your previous argument, down the line to Tomlinson, was not sound.

According to your statement of principle, It isn't needed.
It was you who said you should presume someone to be truthful unless there is 'reliable knowledge' that he is lying. 

I don't recall ever making such a statement.

You don't recall saying: "If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other  reliable knowledge that alerts me to the possibilty."?

So who was lying? And what is the 'reliable knowledge' that you have of such lying?

Why do you repeat the same question when it has already been answered?

Because you haven't answered it. You don't seem to understand that if Todd can verify that Rowley handed him CE399 then it is not necessary for Rowley to verify it as well. It has been verified.  Unless you think that Todd was lying. But you wouldn't think that without 'reliable knowledge'.

[Martin Weidmann]

You don't recall saying: "If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other  reliable knowledge that alerts me to the possibilty."?Because you haven't answered it. You don't seem to understand that if Todd can verify that Rowley handed him CE399 then it is not necessary for Rowley to verify it as well. It has been verified.  Unless you think that Todd was lying. But you wouldn't think that without 'reliable knowledge'.

You don't recall saying: "If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other  reliable knowledge that alerts me to the possibilty."?

No. I do not recall. If I said it, please provide a link

You don't seem to understand that if Todd can verify that Rowley handed him CE399 then it is not necessary for Rowley to verify it as well. It has been verified. 

Unless Todd was lying....

Unless you think that Todd was lying. But you wouldn't think that without 'reliable knowledge'.

Your "logic" doesn't depend on what I think or have to think in your opinion. If it has been verified unless Todd was lying, it hasn't been verified!

[Andrew Mason]

You don't recall saying: "If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other  reliable knowledge that alerts me to the possibilty."?

No. I do not recall. If I said it, please provide a link

It was Liam Kelly - but you responded to my post in response to that statement. If you disagree with it, why are you responding now?  This whole point of this sub-thread is to show that one cannot presume that the witnesses are not lying. but still question CE399.

You don't seem to understand that if Todd can verify that Rowley handed him CE399 then it is not necessary for Rowley to verify it as well. It has been verified. 

Unless Todd was lying....

Unless you think that Todd was lying. But you wouldn't think that without 'reliable knowledge'.

Your "logic" doesn't depend on what I think or have to think in your opinion. If it has been verified unless Todd was lying, it hasn't been verified!

The whole point was that if you do not assume people are lying without 'reasonable knowledge' and you admit there is no such knowledge then there is no reason to think that CE399 was not found by Thomlinson.

 If you are going to step into a discussion read the previous posts. Otherwise you waste our time.