Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo

[Tim Nickerson]

Who was responsible for the possession and integrity of evidence

That doesn't answer my question. What exactly was the importance of maintaining an intact chain of custody of the windshield? I believe that I've shown you before a chain of custody of CE-399. Have I not? Would you like to see it again? I don't know if a similarly intact one is available for the windshield or not. I'll look.

[Jack Trojan]

That doesn't answer my question. What exactly was the importance of maintaining an intact chain of custody of the windshield? I believe that I've shown you before a chain of custody of CE-399. Have I not? Would you like to see it again? I don't know if a similarly intact one is available for the windshield or not. I'll look.

Why was the windshield removed in the 1st place? Wasn't it crucial crime scene evidence that should have been left in situ? Aren't you supposed to preserve evidence instead of obliterate or tamper with it in any way? And didn't the SS and FBI know any of this before they tampered with it? Of course they did. No one would be that incompetent, unless...

[Matt Grantham]

That doesn't answer my question. What exactly was the importance of maintaining an intact chain of custody of the windshield? I believe that I've shown you before a chain of custody of CE-399. Have I not? Would you like to see it again? I don't know if a similarly intact one is available for the windshield or not. I'll look.

 No need to redo CE399 Thanks for being willing to take a look Also the question remains of the three separate defects on the windshield and window frame and rear view mirror Has anyone done an analysis of what he estimated size of these fragments would need to have been to create said damage? Not saying you have special responsibility to know but to me at least it would seem like a logical calculation to see if the head-shot was capable of all it needed to be responsible for If I recall correctly the four fragments from the head of JFK took up at least three fifths of its mass

[Tim Nickerson]

Why was the windshield removed in the 1st place? Wasn't it crucial crime scene evidence that should have been left in situ? Aren't you supposed to preserve evidence instead of obliterate or tamper with it in any way? And didn't the SS and FBI know any of this before they tampered with it? Of course they did. No one would be that incompetent, unless...

The windshield was removed because they wanted the limo to be put back into service. It was preserved long enough. It was thoroughly examined. Measurements and photographs were taken of it. It remained essentially unaltered except for the addition of some cracks to it during its  removal on Nov 26. There was never a hole in it.

[Tim Nickerson]

No need to redo CE399 Thanks for being willing to take a look Also the question remains of the three separate defects on the windshield and window frame and rear view mirror Has anyone done an analysis of what he estimated size of these fragments would need to have been to create said damage? Not saying you have special responsibility to know but to me at least it would seem like a logical calculation to see if the head-shot was capable of all it needed to be responsible for If I recall correctly the four fragments from the head of JFK took up at least three fifths of its mass

How would one go about doing an analysis on what the size of the fragments would need to have been to create the damage to the windshield and chrome piece?

http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif

[Matt Grantham]

How would one go about doing an analysis on what the size of the fragments would need to have been to create the damage to the windshield and chrome piece?

http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif

  Science just halts in this area? Hard to count the ways you could approach the problem If it was impossible then where the testimony saying it was impossible

So if they/you cannot even give ballpark estimates of what hit then we might as well conclude a whole bullet hit the frame.

[Matt Grantham]

. There was never a hole in it.

 How do you know that?