Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Bill Brown]

If the shells were from an automatic weapon, why weren't they found near Tippit's patrol car where the shooter was standing when he fired the shots?  The shells were found about one hundred feet away.  Do you seriously believe the killer went through the process of picking up the shells that had just been automatically ejected only to throw them down once he reached the Davis yard?  Please explain.

circle back
...to Brown's opinion on where these shells are expected to land or where they are found

Domingo Benavides:
"...they were looking all over the place for evidence and everything...and taking fingerprints and what have you...So--I guess they were gonna just walk off and leave them not knowing they was there..and seeing I knew where they was at - I walked over and picked up a stick and picked them up and put them in a Winston package...I think I picked up two and put them in the Winston package and as I was walking back I picked the other one up by hand..."

What's your point?  Shells ejected from the automatic weapon and flew over one hundred feet through the air before landing over by the corner?

[Bill Brown]

I agree with Todd.....  Hill simply thought that the marking 38 SPL ( 38 special) indicated a automatic handgun. 

But we know from numerous witnesses that the man who shot JD Tippit was using a REVOLVER....So arguing about Hill's proclamation is a waste of time and a distractraction from the FACTS. 

This debate is akin to the silly distraction about a mauser being found hidden beneath the boxes on the sixth floor when it is abundantly clear that the rifle was a Mannlicher Carcano.   Arguing about whether the gun used by Tippit's killer was a automatic or a revolver is a game for those who want to distract.

The eyewitnesses and the shells that were widely disbursed at the scene speak loud and clear.... The Killer was using a REVOLVER....

Indeed.

[Bill Brown]

You obviously missed it DUH...how many shells did the Davis sisters find? Benavides? LOL!
You can't connect a proper chain of custody to those shells starting where they are found

That is not the point being discussed at all.

I asked you to explain, if the shells were from an automatic weapon, how they came to be found about one hundred feet away from where the shooter was standing when he fired the shots.  Why can't you respond to that instead of taking the conversation in an entirely different direction?

Unless, of course, you believe the shells were NOT from an automatic weapon.  Do you?

[Tim Nickerson]

Sorry, I don't know exactly where those shells were found..and neither do you
I guess a proper chain of custody would be needed to prove those actually were the shells.

A proper chain of custody would not be needed, even though there was one for the Davis shells.

[Mike Orr]

There doesn't seem to be a "chain of evidence" for anything involving the JFK Assassination. No wonder there are so many questions and doubts. You don't know where to start and it is very hard to believe very much at all. What a shock !

[Bill Brown]

Sorry, I don't know exactly where those shells were found..and neither do you
I guess a proper chain of custody would be needed to prove those actually were the shells.

We do know where the shells were found, unless you have reason to doubt the stories of Domingo Benavides, Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis.  Please post what you've read which casts doubt on where these witnesses said they found the shells.  Go on.

There is not a single piece of problem with the chain of custody of the two Davis shells.

[Matt Grantham]

There doesn't seem to be a "chain of evidence" for anything involving the JFK Assassination. No wonder there are so many questions and doubts. You don't know where to start and it is very hard to believe very much at all. What a shock !

 No doubt Mike And the beauty of that is that for the NNers is they can thus can paint us as some sort of psychopatholigized compulsive cynics

[Steve Howsley]

No doubt Mike And the beauty of that is that for the NNers is they can thus can paint us as some sort of psychopatholigized compulsive cynics

That comment makes it clear that you are a CTer through and through. Quite revealing. I was thinking you might be a fence sitter but I was wrong.

[Tim Nickerson]

No doubt Mike And the beauty of that is that for the NNers is they can thus can paint us as some sort of psychopatholigized compulsive cynics

He's wrong Matt. There are chains of custody for numerous items of evidence. That CTs refuse to acknowledge them or accept them as valid does not negate the fact that they exist.

[Martin Weidmann]

He's wrong Matt. There are chains of custody for numerous items of evidence. That CTs refuse to acknowledge them or accept them as valid does not negate the fact that they exist.

Nor does the fact that you prefer not to see the obvious problems with some of those alleged chains of custody doesn't mean that they are valid or even credible. It just means that your bar is at a very low level.