Bullets and Firearms or a Question for Mainframetech

[Mark]

Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Prove it. Show the scientific proof. Don't just guess.
How do we know the bullet in the wall wasn't there already or was a
missed shot.

[bigdog]

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

OK, so you want to overgeneralize from your very abnormal situation in
some backwater county where there are no competent lawyers.

[OHLeeRedux]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

OK, so you want to overgeneralize from your very abnormal situation in
some backwater county where there are no competent lawyers.

Oh my. Anthony "Trump Mouthpiece" Marsh has jumped on his hero's
jingoistic bandwagon. Yeah, Anthony. Those "shithole countries" are a
pain, aren't they.

[Mark]

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Interesting. Agreed, a judge is going to let what the crime lab folks
proved about the bullet into evidence. Then it's up to the jury (or judge
in a bench trail) to decide if the information is convincing or not. Most
juries are going to say, as yours did, yep, that makes complete sense,
that 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

Mark

[bigdog]

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Interesting. Agreed, a judge is going to let what the crime lab folks
proved about the bullet into evidence. Then it's up to the jury (or judge
in a bench trail) to decide if the information is convincing or not. Most
juries are going to say, as yours did, yep, that makes complete sense,
that 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

Can you imagine the chaos if the courts demanded Chris's standard of
proof. A murderer would just need to us a gun powerful enough that it will
propel a bullet completely through the victim and then when they couldn't
prove the bullet went through the victim, the murderer would walk.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Interesting. Agreed, a judge is going to let what the crime lab folks
proved about the bullet into evidence. Then it's up to the jury (or judge
in a bench trail) to decide if the information is convincing or not. Most
juries are going to say, as yours did, yep, that makes complete sense,
that 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

Can you imagine the chaos if the courts demanded Chris's standard of
proof. A murderer would just need to us a gun powerful enough that it will
propel a bullet completely through the victim and then when they couldn't
prove the bullet went through the victim, the murderer would walk.

Oh, get off it! I see the need for the tight proofs because of the
OBVIOUS effort to implicate Oswald when he wasn't guilty of shooting JFK.
Because of that and the strong effort to try to preserve the false idea of
the 'lone nut' killer, the need for very specific evidence is required.
When there is evidence of multiple guns being used to fire at JFK, it is
also a fact requiring full proof, which is not there.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Interesting. Agreed, a judge is going to let what the crime lab folks
proved about the bullet into evidence. Then it's up to the jury (or judge
in a bench trail) to decide if the information is convincing or not. Most
juries are going to say, as yours did, yep, that makes complete sense,
that 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

Can you imagine the chaos if the courts demanded Chris's standard of
proof. A murderer would just need to us a gun powerful enough that it will
propel a bullet completely through the victim and then when they couldn't
prove the bullet went through the victim, the murderer would walk.

Oh, get off it! I see the need for the tight proofs because of the
OBVIOUS effort to implicate Oswald when he wasn't guilty of shooting JFK.

So once again you start with your assumption and try to make the evidence
fit that assumption.

Post by mainframetech
Because of that and the strong effort to try to preserve the false idea of
the 'lone nut' killer, the need for very specific evidence is required.

It doesn't matter who the shooting victim is, the process for finding the
killer is the same. You let the evidence lead you to the conclusion. You
don't start with the conclusion (assumption) and work backward.

Post by mainframetech
When there is evidence of multiple guns being used to fire at JFK, it is
also a fact requiring full proof, which is not there.

There is no such evidence. There is evidence of one gun fired from one
location. One gun was found. Shells from only that one gun were found.
Bullets only from that one gun were found. Medical evidence indicates
shots from one direction. Eyewitnesses only saw one gunman. All of that
evidence points to a single shooter from the TSBD. There is no evidence of
any other gunmen.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Interesting. Agreed, a judge is going to let what the crime lab folks
proved about the bullet into evidence. Then it's up to the jury (or judge
in a bench trail) to decide if the information is convincing or not. Most
juries are going to say, as yours did, yep, that makes complete sense,
that 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

Can you imagine the chaos if the courts demanded Chris's standard of
proof. A murderer would just need to us a gun powerful enough that it will
propel a bullet completely through the victim and then when they couldn't
prove the bullet went through the victim, the murderer would walk.

Oh, get off it! I see the need for the tight proofs because of the
OBVIOUS effort to implicate Oswald when he wasn't guilty of shooting JFK.

So once again you start with your assumption and try to make the evidence
fit that assumption.

WRONG! Get a grip! You're losing it again! No assumptions here,
only the results of evidence. Apparently you don't have the ability to
take an overview and learn from it. This was a conspiracy, and most
intelligent people can see it. When you look into it in detail, then you
see all kinds of games going on, like the FBI changing witness statements
before sending them in, and other things.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Because of that and the strong effort to try to preserve the false idea of
the 'lone nut' killer, the need for very specific evidence is required.

It doesn't matter who the shooting victim is, the process for finding the
killer is the same. You let the evidence lead you to the conclusion. You
don't start with the conclusion (assumption) and work backward.

WRONG! Think it through! I make comments that have come from my use
of evidence and proofs that I see or learn about. Your silly comments are
based only on the end result of my work to test each situation. I don't
always give you all the thinking or evidence involved, but only the end
result.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
When there is evidence of multiple guns being used to fire at JFK, it is
also a fact requiring full proof, which is not there.

There is no such evidence. There is evidence of one gun fired from one
location. One gun was found. Shells from only that one gun were found.

WRONG! Learn that starting with an assumption then trying to prove it
with some evidence is not the way to go about this problem. Of course,
you've just gotten through complaining that I had done that, but here you
are! The evidence is that many shots were fired and struck in the plaza,
and they couldn't possibly come from only one gun. That evidence leads us
to know that it was a conspiracy, and that there were multiple shooters.

Post by bigdog
Bullets only from that one gun were found. Medical evidence indicates
shots from one direction. Eyewitnesses only saw one gunman. All of that
evidence points to a single shooter from the TSBD. There is no evidence of
any other gunmen.

Naturally you're WRONG again making statements you can't prove against
the evidence in the case. First, bullets from one gun do NOT say that
only one gun was used. Many shooters police their brass. Assassins
should do it automatically. So that piece of information can be helpful
in finding out that the 3 shells may have been left intentionally to
implicate the owner of the rifle. Second, Medical evidence does NOT show
all shots came from one direction, but if it did, that does not prove
there wasn't another gun in play at the same time. As well, there was a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area proving there was another shooter
and that there was lying going on ion the Autopsy Report (AR). So there
is clearly evidence of at least one other shooter, who was not in the same
location (TSBD).

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Interesting. Agreed, a judge is going to let what the crime lab folks
proved about the bullet into evidence. Then it's up to the jury (or judge
in a bench trail) to decide if the information is convincing or not. Most
juries are going to say, as yours did, yep, that makes complete sense,
that 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

Can you imagine the chaos if the courts demanded Chris's standard of
proof. A murderer would just need to us a gun powerful enough that it will
propel a bullet completely through the victim and then when they couldn't
prove the bullet went through the victim, the murderer would walk.

Oh, get off it! I see the need for the tight proofs because of the
OBVIOUS effort to implicate Oswald when he wasn't guilty of shooting JFK.

So once again you start with your assumption and try to make the evidence
fit that assumption.

WRONG! Get a grip! You're losing it again! No assumptions here,
only the results of evidence. Apparently you don't have the ability to
take an overview and learn from it. This was a conspiracy, and most
intelligent people can see it. When you look into it in detail, then you
see all kinds of games going on, like the FBI changing witness statements
before sending them in, and other things.

You just demonstrated what I just said. You start with the assumption that
there was a conspiracy and weigh all the evidence against that assumption.
No wonder you are still lost after all these years.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Because of that and the strong effort to try to preserve the false idea of
the 'lone nut' killer, the need for very specific evidence is required.

It doesn't matter who the shooting victim is, the process for finding the
killer is the same. You let the evidence lead you to the conclusion. You
don't start with the conclusion (assumption) and work backward.

WRONG! Think it through! I make comments that have come from my use
of evidence and proofs that I see or learn about.

I don't recall you ever using evidence. You invariably want to invent
excuses to dismiss the evidence and replace it with your assumptions.

Post by mainframetech
Your silly comments are
based only on the end result of my work to test each situation. I don't
always give you all the thinking or evidence involved, but only the end
result.

The end result is your starting point. You start with the assumption it
was a conspiracy and work backwards from there.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
When there is evidence of multiple guns being used to fire at JFK, it is
also a fact requiring full proof, which is not there.

There is no such evidence. There is evidence of one gun fired from one
location. One gun was found. Shells from only that one gun were found.

WRONG! Learn that starting with an assumption then trying to prove it
with some evidence is not the way to go about this problem.

That's what we have been trying to tell you for years but you keep doing
it that way.

Post by mainframetech
Of course,
you've just gotten through complaining that I had done that, but here you
are! The evidence is that many shots were fired and struck in the plaza,
and they couldn't possibly come from only one gun. That evidence leads us
to know that it was a conspiracy, and that there were multiple shooters.

There is no evidence of another gun or another gunman. No other guns
found. No shells found except the three from Oswald's Carcano. No bullets
recovered except for two from Oswald's Carcano. No medical evidence of any
gun shots other than the two that struck JFK from behind. No eyewitnesses
to any other gunman other than the one in the sniper's nest. You got a
whole lot of nothing.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
Bullets only from that one gun were found. Medical evidence indicates
shots from one direction. Eyewitnesses only saw one gunman. All of that
evidence points to a single shooter from the TSBD. There is no evidence of
any other gunmen.

Naturally you're WRONG again making statements you can't prove against
the evidence in the case.

Naturally, you've got it backwards. If you are going to postulate
additional gunman, it is up to you to provide evidence of such. I don't
have the burden of providing evidence that there weren't additional guns.
It is enough to point out that that there is only forensic evidence of one
gun and eyewitnesses only saw one gunman in a single location.

Post by mainframetech
First, bullets from one gun do NOT say that
only one gun was used.

It doesn't provide evidence of a second gun. Again, if you are going to
postulate additional guns, you need to provide evidence of such. You're
still batting .000 in that regard.

Post by mainframetech
Many shooters police their brass. Assassins
should do it automatically. So that piece of information can be helpful
in finding out that the 3 shells may have been left intentionally to
implicate the owner of the rifle.

Oh, there's compelling evidence of additional gunman. <chuckle>

Post by mainframetech
Second, Medical evidence does NOT show
all shots came from one direction, but if it did, that does not prove
there wasn't another gun in play at the same time.

ALL the medical evidence indicates shots from one direction only. That is
what every qualified medical examiner has concluded. The opinions of
laymen such as yourself are not evidence of anything.

Post by mainframetech
As well, there was a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area proving there was another shooter
and that there was lying going on ion the Autopsy Report (AR).

This is an example of an opinion by a layman which is not shared by any
competent medical examiner.

Post by mainframetech
So there
is clearly evidence of at least one other shooter, who was not in the same
location (TSBD).

Your opinions aren't evidence of anything. Not even close.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Interesting. Agreed, a judge is going to let what the crime lab folks
proved about the bullet into evidence. Then it's up to the jury (or judge
in a bench trail) to decide if the information is convincing or not. Most
juries are going to say, as yours did, yep, that makes complete sense,
that 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

Can you imagine the chaos if the courts demanded Chris's standard of
proof. A murderer would just need to us a gun powerful enough that it will
propel a bullet completely through the victim and then when they couldn't
prove the bullet went through the victim, the murderer would walk.

Oh, get off it! I see the need for the tight proofs because of the
OBVIOUS effort to implicate Oswald when he wasn't guilty of shooting JFK.

So once again you start with your assumption and try to make the evidence
fit that assumption.

WRONG! Get a grip! You're losing it again! No assumptions here,
only the results of evidence. Apparently you don't have the ability to
take an overview and learn from it. This was a conspiracy, and most
intelligent people can see it. When you look into it in detail, then you
see all kinds of games going on, like the FBI changing witness statements
before sending them in, and other things.

You just demonstrated what I just said. You start with the assumption that
there was a conspiracy and weigh all the evidence against that assumption.
No wonder you are still lost after all these years.

No assumptions here. But the methods anyone uses to get to the guilty
belong to whoever uses them, and you're not in any position to direct to
others how they use them. If someone finds that there was conspiracy done
in the autopsy, then it's normal to suspect it elsewhere in the case.
When you make a hypothesis, testing it is a standard method of finding out
if it's true.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Because of that and the strong effort to try to preserve the false idea of
the 'lone nut' killer, the need for very specific evidence is required.

It doesn't matter who the shooting victim is, the process for finding the
killer is the same. You let the evidence lead you to the conclusion. You
don't start with the conclusion (assumption) and work backward.

WRONG! Think it through! I make comments that have come from my use
of evidence and proofs that I see or learn about.

I don't recall you ever using evidence. You invariably want to invent
excuses to dismiss the evidence and replace it with your assumptions.

WRONG! Now there's a perfect indication of why you've failed so deeply
to determine the facts in this case. If you gave more credence to what
I've spoken to you about, you'd be a lot further along than simply
believing the WCR.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Your silly comments are
based only on the end result of my work to test each situation. I don't
always give you all the thinking or evidence involved, but only the end
result.

The end result is your starting point. You start with the assumption it
was a conspiracy and work backwards from there.

No need to answer that silly one.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
When there is evidence of multiple guns being used to fire at JFK, it is
also a fact requiring full proof, which is not there.

There is no such evidence. There is evidence of one gun fired from one
location. One gun was found. Shells from only that one gun were found.

WRONG! Learn that starting with an assumption then trying to prove it
with some evidence is not the way to go about this problem.

That's what we have been trying to tell you for years but you keep doing
it that way.

That's been explained above.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Of course,
you've just gotten through complaining that I had done that, but here you
are! The evidence is that many shots were fired and struck in the plaza,
and they couldn't possibly come from only one gun. That evidence leads us
to know that it was a conspiracy, and that there were multiple shooters.

There is no evidence of another gun or another gunman. No other guns
found. No shells found except the three from Oswald's Carcano. No bullets
recovered except for two from Oswald's Carcano. No medical evidence of any
gun shots other than the two that struck JFK from behind. No eyewitnesses
to any other gunman other than the one in the sniper's nest. You got a
whole lot of nothing.

You've been given plenty of evidence of multiple shots fired and
multiple shooters. Because no other guns were found means nothing and you
know it. No bullets recovered other than 2 does not mean that there were
no other bullets fired, and you know it. The medical evidence from the
autopsy shows that there were at least 3 bullets that hit JFK, but you
have no clue about that. And what eyewitnesses saw or didn't see says
nothing whatsoever as to whether there were others shooting from other
locations, and there were eyewitnesses that saw 2 men in the 6th floor
with a gun.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
Bullets only from that one gun were found. Medical evidence indicates
shots from one direction. Eyewitnesses only saw one gunman. All of that
evidence points to a single shooter from the TSBD. There is no evidence of
any other gunmen.

Naturally you're WRONG again making statements you can't prove against
the evidence in the case.

Naturally, you've got it backwards. If you are going to postulate
additional gunman, it is up to you to provide evidence of such. I don't
have the burden of providing evidence that there weren't additional guns.
It is enough to point out that that there is only forensic evidence of one
gun and eyewitnesses only saw one gunman in a single location.

There is forensic evidence of multiple shots fired from multiple
weapons. And it has been explained to you. Repeat, eyewitnesses saw 2
men on the 6th floor with a gun.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
First, bullets from one gun do NOT say that
only one gun was used.

It doesn't provide evidence of a second gun. Again, if you are going to
postulate additional guns, you need to provide evidence of such. You're
still batting .000 in that regard.

That's your opinion, and you have to hold that silly opinion because
if you thought logically, you'd have to admit that the WCR was wrong in
more than 1%. But this is all repetitive.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Many shooters police their brass. Assassins
should do it automatically. So that piece of information can be helpful
in finding out that the 3 shells may have been left intentionally to
implicate the owner of the rifle.

Oh, there's compelling evidence of additional gunman. <chuckle>

Yep, and it has been laid out for you simply. <belly laugh>

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Second, Medical evidence does NOT show
all shots came from one direction, but if it did, that does not prove
there wasn't another gun in play at the same time.

ALL the medical evidence indicates shots from one direction only. That is
what every qualified medical examiner has concluded. The opinions of
laymen such as yourself are not evidence of anything.

WRONG! Are you trying to get away with saying that the bullet that hit
the right hand curb (seen by officer 'Steve' Ellis) was fired in the same
direction from the same location as the bullet that hit JFK in the upper
back? And the bullet that struck the curb way over near James Tague?
And the bullet that hit the chrome bar over the windshield, and the bullet
that made a hole through the windshield that was seen by 6 eyewitnesses?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well, there was a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area proving there was another shooter
and that there was lying going on ion the Autopsy Report (AR).

This is an example of an opinion by a layman which is not shared by any
competent medical examiner.

Competence has nothing to do with it, nor does expertise in a chosen
profession. It was a matter of ENLARGING all photos to find the one that
showed the bullet hole in question. They didn't do it, but I and some
others did do it.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So there
is clearly evidence of at least one other shooter, who was not in the same
location (TSBD).

Your opinions aren't evidence of anything. Not even close.

Well, they come from me and my research and reading, where yours mostly
come from the WCR.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Interesting. Agreed, a judge is going to let what the crime lab folks
proved about the bullet into evidence. Then it's up to the jury (or judge
in a bench trail) to decide if the information is convincing or not. Most
juries are going to say, as yours did, yep, that makes complete sense,
that 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

Can you imagine the chaos if the courts demanded Chris's standard of
proof. A murderer would just need to us a gun powerful enough that it will
propel a bullet completely through the victim and then when they couldn't
prove the bullet went through the victim, the murderer would walk.

Oh, get off it! I see the need for the tight proofs because of the
OBVIOUS effort to implicate Oswald when he wasn't guilty of shooting JFK.

So once again you start with your assumption and try to make the evidence
fit that assumption.

WRONG! Get a grip! You're losing it again! No assumptions here,
only the results of evidence. Apparently you don't have the ability to
take an overview and learn from it. This was a conspiracy, and most
intelligent people can see it. When you look into it in detail, then you
see all kinds of games going on, like the FBI changing witness statements
before sending them in, and other things.

You just demonstrated what I just said. You start with the assumption that
there was a conspiracy and weigh all the evidence against that assumption.
No wonder you are still lost after all these years.

No assumptions here. But the methods anyone uses to get to the guilty
belong to whoever uses them, and you're not in any position to direct to
others how they use them. If someone finds that there was conspiracy done
in the autopsy, then it's normal to suspect it elsewhere in the case.
When you make a hypothesis, testing it is a standard method of finding out
if it's true.

Your hypotheses don't even pass the smell test.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Because of that and the strong effort to try to preserve the false idea of
the 'lone nut' killer, the need for very specific evidence is required.

It doesn't matter who the shooting victim is, the process for finding the
killer is the same. You let the evidence lead you to the conclusion. You
don't start with the conclusion (assumption) and work backward.

WRONG! Think it through! I make comments that have come from my use
of evidence and proofs that I see or learn about.

I don't recall you ever using evidence. You invariably want to invent
excuses to dismiss the evidence and replace it with your assumptions.

WRONG! Now there's a perfect indication of why you've failed so deeply
to determine the facts in this case. If you gave more credence to what
I've spoken to you about, you'd be a lot further along than simply
believing the WCR.

If I gave any credence to the things you've spoken about, I would be as
silly as you are.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Your silly comments are
based only on the end result of my work to test each situation. I don't
always give you all the thinking or evidence involved, but only the end
result.

The end result is your starting point. You start with the assumption it
was a conspiracy and work backwards from there.

No need to answer that silly one.

Because it is true.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
When there is evidence of multiple guns being used to fire at JFK, it is
also a fact requiring full proof, which is not there.

There is no such evidence. There is evidence of one gun fired from one
location. One gun was found. Shells from only that one gun were found.

WRONG! Learn that starting with an assumption then trying to prove it
with some evidence is not the way to go about this problem.

That's what we have been trying to tell you for years but you keep doing
it that way.

That's been explained above.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Of course,
you've just gotten through complaining that I had done that, but here you
are! The evidence is that many shots were fired and struck in the plaza,
and they couldn't possibly come from only one gun. That evidence leads us
to know that it was a conspiracy, and that there were multiple shooters.

There is no evidence of another gun or another gunman. No other guns
found. No shells found except the three from Oswald's Carcano. No bullets
recovered except for two from Oswald's Carcano. No medical evidence of any
gun shots other than the two that struck JFK from behind. No eyewitnesses
to any other gunman other than the one in the sniper's nest. You got a
whole lot of nothing.

You've been given plenty of evidence of multiple shots fired and
multiple shooters.

You have no concept of evidence. An amateur's opinion about what the
medical evidence indicates isn't evidence. It's just a silly opinion.

Post by mainframetech
Because no other guns were found means nothing and you know it.

It means you have no physical evidence of multiple gunmen.

Post by mainframetech
No bullets recovered other than 2 does not mean that there were
no other bullets fired, and you know it. The medical evidence from the
autopsy shows that there were at least 3 bullets that hit JFK, but you
have no clue about that.

That is just the sort of amateur's opinion that I referred to earlier. It
means nothing.

Post by mainframetech
And what eyewitnesses saw or didn't see says
nothing whatsoever as to whether there were others shooting from other
locations, and there were eyewitnesses that saw 2 men in the 6th floor
with a gun.

It means you have no eyewitness evidence of multiple gunman.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
Bullets only from that one gun were found. Medical evidence indicates
shots from one direction. Eyewitnesses only saw one gunman. All of that
evidence points to a single shooter from the TSBD. There is no evidence of
any other gunmen.

Naturally you're WRONG again making statements you can't prove against
the evidence in the case.

Naturally, you've got it backwards. If you are going to postulate
additional gunman, it is up to you to provide evidence of such. I don't
have the burden of providing evidence that there weren't additional guns.
It is enough to point out that that there is only forensic evidence of one
gun and eyewitnesses only saw one gunman in a single location.

There is forensic evidence of multiple shots fired from multiple
weapons.

Where?

Post by mainframetech
And it has been explained to you.

Your explanations aren't evidence. They are opinions.

Post by mainframetech
Repeat, eyewitnesses saw 2
men on the 6th floor with a gun.

Only after you got done modifying what they actually said.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
First, bullets from one gun do NOT say that
only one gun was used.

It doesn't provide evidence of a second gun. Again, if you are going to
postulate additional guns, you need to provide evidence of such. You're
still batting .000 in that regard.

That's your opinion, and you have to hold that silly opinion because
if you thought logically, you'd have to admit that the WCR was wrong in
more than 1%. But this is all repetitive.

The WC got it right. Oswald was the assassin. No evidence has ever
surfaced that he had even a single accomplice.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Many shooters police their brass. Assassins
should do it automatically. So that piece of information can be helpful
in finding out that the 3 shells may have been left intentionally to
implicate the owner of the rifle.

Oh, there's compelling evidence of additional gunman. <chuckle>

Yep, and it has been laid out for you simply. <belly laugh>

So now you think that your conjectures are evidence. That seems to be your
SOP. If something is theoretically possible, it must be true even if there
is no evidence of it.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Second, Medical evidence does NOT show
all shots came from one direction, but if it did, that does not prove
there wasn't another gun in play at the same time.

ALL the medical evidence indicates shots from one direction only. That is
what every qualified medical examiner has concluded. The opinions of
laymen such as yourself are not evidence of anything.

WRONG! Are you trying to get away with saying that the bullet that hit
the right hand curb (seen by officer 'Steve' Ellis) was fired in the same
direction from the same location as the bullet that hit JFK in the upper
back?

It was fired by the same shooter. It was fired at a slightly different
time in a slightly different direction.

Post by mainframetech
And the bullet that struck the curb way over near James Tague?

We don't know for sure what hit Tague although Luke Haas has made a good
case it was likely a fragment from the head shot.

Post by mainframetech
And the bullet that hit the chrome bar over the windshield,

That was a fragment from the head shot as well.

Post by mainframetech
and the bullet
that made a hole through the windshield that was seen by 6 eyewitnesses?

Another fragment. You seem to want to count each fragment as a separate
bullet.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well, there was a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area proving there was another shooter
and that there was lying going on ion the Autopsy Report (AR).

This is an example of an opinion by a layman which is not shared by any
competent medical examiner.

Competence has nothing to do with it,

Certainly not in your case.

Post by mainframetech
nor does expertise in a chosen profession.

That statement speaks volumes. Why listen to people who know what they are
talking about when you can just concoct a far more interesting story
independent of any real evidence.

Post by mainframetech
It was a matter of ENLARGING all photos to find the one that
showed the bullet hole in question. They didn't do it, but I and some
others did do it.

Still waiting for you to tell us what appears in the enlarged photo that
can't be seen in normal size. The normal size photos shows a dark spot
extending down from the hairline. When you enlarge the photo, the dark
spot just gets bigger. There is nothing in that dark spot that indicates
it is a bullet hole no matter how much you enlarge it.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So there
is clearly evidence of at least one other shooter, who was not in the same
location (TSBD).

Your opinions aren't evidence of anything. Not even close.

Well, they come from me and my research and reading, where yours mostly
come from the WCR.

IOW, mine comes from a credible source and yours doesn't.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Interesting. Agreed, a judge is going to let what the crime lab folks
proved about the bullet into evidence. Then it's up to the jury (or judge
in a bench trail) to decide if the information is convincing or not. Most
juries are going to say, as yours did, yep, that makes complete sense,
that 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

Can you imagine the chaos if the courts demanded Chris's standard of
proof. A murderer would just need to us a gun powerful enough that it will
propel a bullet completely through the victim and then when they couldn't
prove the bullet went through the victim, the murderer would walk.

Oh, get off it! I see the need for the tight proofs because of the
OBVIOUS effort to implicate Oswald when he wasn't guilty of shooting JFK.

So once again you start with your assumption and try to make the evidence
fit that assumption.

WRONG! Get a grip! You're losing it again! No assumptions here,
only the results of evidence. Apparently you don't have the ability to
take an overview and learn from it. This was a conspiracy, and most
intelligent people can see it. When you look into it in detail, then you
see all kinds of games going on, like the FBI changing witness statements
before sending them in, and other things.

You just demonstrated what I just said. You start with the assumption that
there was a conspiracy and weigh all the evidence against that assumption.
No wonder you are still lost after all these years.

No assumptions here. But the methods anyone uses to get to the guilty
belong to whoever uses them, and you're not in any position to direct to
others how they use them. If someone finds that there was conspiracy done
in the autopsy, then it's normal to suspect it elsewhere in the case.
When you make a hypothesis, testing it is a standard method of finding out
if it's true.

Your hypotheses don't even pass the smell test.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Because of that and the strong effort to try to preserve the false idea of
the 'lone nut' killer, the need for very specific evidence is required.

It doesn't matter who the shooting victim is, the process for finding the
killer is the same. You let the evidence lead you to the conclusion. You
don't start with the conclusion (assumption) and work backward.

WRONG! Think it through! I make comments that have come from my use
of evidence and proofs that I see or learn about.

I don't recall you ever using evidence. You invariably want to invent
excuses to dismiss the evidence and replace it with your assumptions.

WRONG! Now there's a perfect indication of why you've failed so deeply
to determine the facts in this case. If you gave more credence to what
I've spoken to you about, you'd be a lot further along than simply
believing the WCR.

If I gave any credence to the things you've spoken about, I would be as
silly as you are.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Your silly comments are
based only on the end result of my work to test each situation. I don't
always give you all the thinking or evidence involved, but only the end
result.

The end result is your starting point. You start with the assumption it
was a conspiracy and work backwards from there.

No need to answer that silly one.

Because it is true.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
When there is evidence of multiple guns being used to fire at JFK, it is
also a fact requiring full proof, which is not there.

There is no such evidence. There is evidence of one gun fired from one
location. One gun was found. Shells from only that one gun were found.

WRONG! Learn that starting with an assumption then trying to prove it
with some evidence is not the way to go about this problem.

That's what we have been trying to tell you for years but you keep doing
it that way.

That's been explained above.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Of course,
you've just gotten through complaining that I had done that, but here you
are! The evidence is that many shots were fired and struck in the plaza,
and they couldn't possibly come from only one gun. That evidence leads us
to know that it was a conspiracy, and that there were multiple shooters.

There is no evidence of another gun or another gunman. No other guns
found. No shells found except the three from Oswald's Carcano. No bullets
recovered except for two from Oswald's Carcano. No medical evidence of any
gun shots other than the two that struck JFK from behind. No eyewitnesses
to any other gunman other than the one in the sniper's nest. You got a
whole lot of nothing.

You've been given plenty of evidence of multiple shots fired and
multiple shooters.

You have no concept of evidence. An amateur's opinion about what the
medical evidence indicates isn't evidence. It's just a silly opinion.

Post by mainframetech
Because no other guns were found means nothing and you know it.

It means you have no physical evidence of multiple gunmen.

Post by mainframetech
No bullets recovered other than 2 does not mean that there were
no other bullets fired, and you know it. The medical evidence from the
autopsy shows that there were at least 3 bullets that hit JFK, but you
have no clue about that.

That is just the sort of amateur's opinion that I referred to earlier. It
means nothing.

Post by mainframetech
And what eyewitnesses saw or didn't see says
nothing whatsoever as to whether there were others shooting from other
locations, and there were eyewitnesses that saw 2 men in the 6th floor
with a gun.

It means you have no eyewitness evidence of multiple gunman.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
Bullets only from that one gun were found. Medical evidence indicates
shots from one direction. Eyewitnesses only saw one gunman. All of that
evidence points to a single shooter from the TSBD. There is no evidence of
any other gunmen.

Naturally you're WRONG again making statements you can't prove against
the evidence in the case.

Naturally, you've got it backwards. If you are going to postulate
additional gunman, it is up to you to provide evidence of such. I don't
have the burden of providing evidence that there weren't additional guns.
It is enough to point out that that there is only forensic evidence of one
gun and eyewitnesses only saw one gunman in a single location.

There is forensic evidence of multiple shots fired from multiple
weapons.

Where?

Post by mainframetech
And it has been explained to you.

Your explanations aren't evidence. They are opinions.

Post by mainframetech
Repeat, eyewitnesses saw 2
men on the 6th floor with a gun.

Only after you got done modifying what they actually said.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
First, bullets from one gun do NOT say that
only one gun was used.

It doesn't provide evidence of a second gun. Again, if you are going to
postulate additional guns, you need to provide evidence of such. You're
still batting .000 in that regard.

That's your opinion, and you have to hold that silly opinion because
if you thought logically, you'd have to admit that the WCR was wrong in
more than 1%. But this is all repetitive.

The WC got it right. Oswald was the assassin. No evidence has ever
surfaced that he had even a single accomplice.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Many shooters police their brass. Assassins
should do it automatically. So that piece of information can be helpful
in finding out that the 3 shells may have been left intentionally to
implicate the owner of the rifle.

Oh, there's compelling evidence of additional gunman. <chuckle>

Yep, and it has been laid out for you simply. <belly laugh>

So now you think that your conjectures are evidence. That seems to be your
SOP. If something is theoretically possible, it must be true even if there
is no evidence of it.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Second, Medical evidence does NOT show
all shots came from one direction, but if it did, that does not prove
there wasn't another gun in play at the same time.

ALL the medical evidence indicates shots from one direction only. That is
what every qualified medical examiner has concluded. The opinions of
laymen such as yourself are not evidence of anything.

WRONG! Are you trying to get away with saying that the bullet that hit
the right hand curb (seen by officer 'Steve' Ellis) was fired in the same
direction from the same location as the bullet that hit JFK in the upper
back?

It was fired by the same shooter. It was fired at a slightly different
time in a slightly different direction.

Post by mainframetech
And the bullet that struck the curb way over near James Tague?

We don't know for sure what hit Tague although Luke Haas has made a good
case it was likely a fragment from the head shot.

Post by mainframetech
And the bullet that hit the chrome bar over the windshield,

That was a fragment from the head shot as well.

Post by mainframetech
and the bullet
that made a hole through the windshield that was seen by 6 eyewitnesses?

Another fragment. You seem to want to count each fragment as a separate
bullet.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well, there was a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area proving there was another shooter
and that there was lying going on ion the Autopsy Report (AR).

This is an example of an opinion by a layman which is not shared by any
competent medical examiner.

Competence has nothing to do with it,

Certainly not in your case.

Post by mainframetech
nor does expertise in a chosen profession.

That statement speaks volumes. Why listen to people who know what they are
talking about when you can just concoct a far more interesting story
independent of any real evidence.

Post by mainframetech
It was a matter of ENLARGING all photos to find the one that
showed the bullet hole in question. They didn't do it, but I and some
others did do it.

Still waiting for you to tell us what appears in the enlarged photo that
can't be seen in normal size. The normal size photos shows a dark spot
extending down from the hairline. When you enlarge the photo, the dark
spot just gets bigger. There is nothing in that dark spot that indicates
it is a bullet hole no matter how much you enlarge it.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So there
is clearly evidence of at least one other shooter, who was not in the same
location (TSBD).

Your opinions aren't evidence of anything. Not even close.

Well, they come from me and my research and reading, where yours mostly
come from the WCR.

IOW, mine comes from a credible source and yours doesn't.

Thank you Pee-Wee Herman. I know you are, but what am I?

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Interesting. Agreed, a judge is going to let what the crime lab folks
proved about the bullet into evidence. Then it's up to the jury (or judge
in a bench trail) to decide if the information is convincing or not. Most
juries are going to say, as yours did, yep, that makes complete sense,
that 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

Can you imagine the chaos if the courts demanded Chris's standard of
proof. A murderer would just need to us a gun powerful enough that it will
propel a bullet completely through the victim and then when they couldn't
prove the bullet went through the victim, the murderer would walk.

Oh, get off it! I see the need for the tight proofs because of the
OBVIOUS effort to implicate Oswald when he wasn't guilty of shooting JFK.

So once again you start with your assumption and try to make the evidence
fit that assumption.

Post by mainframetech
Because of that and the strong effort to try to preserve the false idea of
the 'lone nut' killer, the need for very specific evidence is required.

It doesn't matter who the shooting victim is, the process for finding the
killer is the same. You let the evidence lead you to the conclusion. You
don't start with the conclusion (assumption) and work backward.

Post by mainframetech
When there is evidence of multiple guns being used to fire at JFK, it is
also a fact requiring full proof, which is not there.

There is no such evidence. There is evidence of one gun fired from one
location. One gun was found. Shells from only that one gun were found.

The acoustical evidence proves that 3 shots were fired from the TSBD.

Post by bigdog
Bullets only from that one gun were found. Medical evidence indicates
shots from one direction. Eyewitnesses only saw one gunman. All of that
evidence points to a single shooter from the TSBD. There is no evidence of
any other gunmen.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Interesting. Agreed, a judge is going to let what the crime lab folks
proved about the bullet into evidence. Then it's up to the jury (or judge
in a bench trail) to decide if the information is convincing or not. Most
juries are going to say, as yours did, yep, that makes complete sense,
that 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

Can you imagine the chaos if the courts demanded Chris's standard of
proof. A murderer would just need to us a gun powerful enough that it will
propel a bullet completely through the victim and then when they couldn't
prove the bullet went through the victim, the murderer would walk.

Silly. COurts would never be as demanding as CHris.
As for bullets, we should no find an intact bullet in either victim
given the type of Caracno bullet used.
It is know for its penetrating ability.
Many people doubt the SBT simply because the WC asks too much of CE 399.
Maybe another bullet, but not CE 399.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Different circumstances demand different kinds of investigation and
proof. In this case, there was an obvious attempt to implicate a 'patsy'
and therefore all evidence had to be strenuously checked. Attempt to
relate the JFK murder with other possibly open and shut murders won't help
figure out this case.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Different circumstances demand different kinds of investigation and
proof. In this case, there was an obvious attempt to implicate a 'patsy'
and therefore all evidence had to be strenuously checked. Attempt to
relate the JFK murder with other possibly open and shut murders won't help
figure out this case.

Typical backward thinking. You start with the assumption Oswald was a
patsy and then you look at the evidence through that prism. You make the
evidence match your assumption rather than allow the evidence to lead you
to a logical conclusion.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Different circumstances demand different kinds of investigation and
proof. In this case, there was an obvious attempt to implicate a 'patsy'
and therefore all evidence had to be strenuously checked. Attempt to
relate the JFK murder with other possibly open and shut murders won't help
figure out this case.

Typical backward thinking. You start with the assumption Oswald was a
patsy and then you look at the evidence through that prism. You make the
evidence match your assumption rather than allow the evidence to lead you
to a logical conclusion.

WRONG yet again! When will you learn. By taking an overview it is
easy to see there was a conspiracy, and a plot to blame one 'patsy' to let
all the other plotters get away. Try taking an overview once in a while.
It can lead you to realize what we have here, a plot. All the individual
parts of the case have plot written all over them. So when you go through
the case, everything fits only the conspiracy scenario.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Different circumstances demand different kinds of investigation and
proof. In this case, there was an obvious attempt to implicate a 'patsy'
and therefore all evidence had to be strenuously checked. Attempt to
relate the JFK murder with other possibly open and shut murders won't help
figure out this case.

Typical backward thinking. You start with the assumption Oswald was a
patsy and then you look at the evidence through that prism. You make the
evidence match your assumption rather than allow the evidence to lead you
to a logical conclusion.

WRONG yet again! When will you learn. By taking an overview it is
easy to see there was a conspiracy, and a plot to blame one 'patsy' to let
all the other plotters get away. Try taking an overview once in a while.
It can lead you to realize what we have here, a plot. All the individual
parts of the case have plot written all over them. So when you go through
the case, everything fits only the conspiracy scenario.

All the individual parts point to one man firing from one location and
that man's name is Lee Harvey Oswald. All the REAL evidence fits that
finding. There is not a shred of credible evidence he had even a single
accomplice in his crime. Now if you want to dream up evidence, you have
lots of other choices, but if you stick with real evidence, you have only
one.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Different circumstances demand different kinds of investigation and
proof. In this case, there was an obvious attempt to implicate a 'patsy'
and therefore all evidence had to be strenuously checked. Attempt to
relate the JFK murder with other possibly open and shut murders won't help
figure out this case.

Typical backward thinking. You start with the assumption Oswald was a
patsy and then you look at the evidence through that prism. You make the
evidence match your assumption rather than allow the evidence to lead you
to a logical conclusion.

WRONG yet again! When will you learn. By taking an overview it is
easy to see there was a conspiracy, and a plot to blame one 'patsy' to let
all the other plotters get away. Try taking an overview once in a while.
It can lead you to realize what we have here, a plot. All the individual
parts of the case have plot written all over them. So when you go through
the case, everything fits only the conspiracy scenario.

All the individual parts point to one man firing from one location and
that man's name is Lee Harvey Oswald. All the REAL evidence fits that
finding. There is not a shred of credible evidence he had even a single
accomplice in his crime. Now if you want to dream up evidence, you have
lots of other choices, but if you stick with real evidence, you have only
one.

As noted in the post just above this one, there is proof of at least
one other shooter from another location than the TSBD. As well, the
evidence that you've listed before is minor and only a couple items that
are circumstantial could be used to prove anything, and certainly not that
LHO committed murder.

Logic also is part of evidence, in that it can be applied to evidence
and you can glean much more from the items of evidence than originally
seem to be so.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Different circumstances demand different kinds of investigation and
proof. In this case, there was an obvious attempt to implicate a 'patsy'
and therefore all evidence had to be strenuously checked. Attempt to
relate the JFK murder with other possibly open and shut murders won't help
figure out this case.

Typical backward thinking. You start with the assumption Oswald was a
patsy and then you look at the evidence through that prism. You make the
evidence match your assumption rather than allow the evidence to lead you
to a logical conclusion.

WRONG yet again! When will you learn. By taking an overview it is
easy to see there was a conspiracy, and a plot to blame one 'patsy' to let
all the other plotters get away. Try taking an overview once in a while.
It can lead you to realize what we have here, a plot. All the individual
parts of the case have plot written all over them. So when you go through
the case, everything fits only the conspiracy scenario.

All the individual parts point to one man firing from one location and
that man's name is Lee Harvey Oswald. All the REAL evidence fits that
finding. There is not a shred of credible evidence he had even a single
accomplice in his crime. Now if you want to dream up evidence, you have
lots of other choices, but if you stick with real evidence, you have only
one.

As noted in the post just above this one, there is proof of at least
one other shooter from another location than the TSBD.

Phantom evidence for phantom shooters.

Post by mainframetech
As well, the
evidence that you've listed before is minor and only a couple items that
are circumstantial could be used to prove anything, and certainly not that
LHO committed murder.

Fingerprints, ballistics, fiber evidence, medical evidence, photographic
evidence are all minor evidence in your eyes but you will turn around and
conjure up additional shooters out of thin air. Any chance you would like
to list the evidence that Oswald was the shooter in the TSBD alongside the
evidence of your shooters and compare the two to see which is more
substantial?

Post by mainframetech
Logic also is part of evidence, in that it can be applied to evidence
and you can glean much more from the items of evidence than originally
seem to be so.

Maybe someday you will give that a try.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Different circumstances demand different kinds of investigation and
proof. In this case, there was an obvious attempt to implicate a 'patsy'
and therefore all evidence had to be strenuously checked. Attempt to
relate the JFK murder with other possibly open and shut murders won't help
figure out this case.

Typical backward thinking. You start with the assumption Oswald was a
patsy and then you look at the evidence through that prism. You make the
evidence match your assumption rather than allow the evidence to lead you
to a logical conclusion.

WRONG yet again! When will you learn. By taking an overview it is
easy to see there was a conspiracy, and a plot to blame one 'patsy' to let
all the other plotters get away. Try taking an overview once in a while.
It can lead you to realize what we have here, a plot. All the individual
parts of the case have plot written all over them. So when you go through
the case, everything fits only the conspiracy scenario.

All the individual parts point to one man firing from one location and
that man's name is Lee Harvey Oswald. All the REAL evidence fits that
finding. There is not a shred of credible evidence he had even a single
accomplice in his crime. Now if you want to dream up evidence, you have
lots of other choices, but if you stick with real evidence, you have only
one.

As noted in the post just above this one, there is proof of at least
one other shooter from another location than the TSBD.

Phantom evidence for phantom shooters.

Nope, real evidence for real shooters.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well, the
evidence that you've listed before is minor and only a couple items that
are circumstantial could be used to prove anything, and certainly not that
LHO committed murder.

Fingerprints, ballistics, fiber evidence, medical evidence, photographic
evidence are all minor evidence in your eyes but you will turn around and
conjure up additional shooters out of thin air.

As you well know from us repeating this info many times over, the
fingerprints were on the rifle that belonged to Oswald who owned the
rifle, and on boxes where he worked. Ballistics has me stumped. There is
nothing under that sub head that proves anything related to Oswald that I
can think of. Perhaps you can explain that one. Fiber evidence, that's
from LHO's shirt which is expected to be on his rifle if he ever put the
rifle to his shoulder while wearing that shirt. And I doubt he had tons
of shirts. Medical evidence? None point to Oswald as a shooter, explain
that one. Photographic evidence? How does that prove that LHO fired into
the motorcade?

Post by bigdog
Any chance you would like
to list the evidence that Oswald was the shooter in the TSBD alongside the
evidence of your shooters and compare the two to see which is more
substantial?

No problem, though you have seen my list many times over. Consider
that I repeated it, since it includes the many bullet strikes in the
plaza, and they were right, left, and center. The story you tried to get
away with was that a bullet hit the head of JFK and split into 10
fragments all of which came out of a single hole in the head that was on
the right side above the ear, and then zinged all over the plaza in those
many directions! And that's not very substantial. So the multiple
strikes all over the place takes the prize.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Logic also is part of evidence, in that it can be applied to evidence
and you can glean much more from the items of evidence than originally
seem to be so.

Maybe someday you will give that a try.

Youy have missed out. I've used that on a number of occasions.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Different circumstances demand different kinds of investigation and
proof. In this case, there was an obvious attempt to implicate a 'patsy'
and therefore all evidence had to be strenuously checked. Attempt to
relate the JFK murder with other possibly open and shut murders won't help
figure out this case.

Typical backward thinking. You start with the assumption Oswald was a
patsy and then you look at the evidence through that prism. You make the
evidence match your assumption rather than allow the evidence to lead you
to a logical conclusion.

WRONG yet again! When will you learn. By taking an overview it is
easy to see there was a conspiracy, and a plot to blame one 'patsy' to let
all the other plotters get away. Try taking an overview once in a while.
It can lead you to realize what we have here, a plot. All the individual
parts of the case have plot written all over them. So when you go through
the case, everything fits only the conspiracy scenario.

All the individual parts point to one man firing from one location and
that man's name is Lee Harvey Oswald. All the REAL evidence fits that
finding. There is not a shred of credible evidence he had even a single
accomplice in his crime. Now if you want to dream up evidence, you have
lots of other choices, but if you stick with real evidence, you have only
one.

As noted in the post just above this one, there is proof of at least
one other shooter from another location than the TSBD.

Phantom evidence for phantom shooters.

Nope, real evidence for real shooters.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well, the
evidence that you've listed before is minor and only a couple items that
are circumstantial could be used to prove anything, and certainly not that
LHO committed murder.

Fingerprints, ballistics, fiber evidence, medical evidence, photographic
evidence are all minor evidence in your eyes but you will turn around and
conjure up additional shooters out of thin air.

As you well know from us repeating this info many times over, the
fingerprints were on the rifle that belonged to Oswald who owned the
rifle, and on boxes where he worked. Ballistics has me stumped.

What doesn't?

Post by mainframetech
There is
nothing under that sub head that proves anything related to Oswald that I
can think of.

Just because all the recovered shells and bullets came from his rifle you
don't think that relates to him.

Post by mainframetech
Perhaps you can explain that one.

What's to explain. It is damning evidence against Oswald and you refuse to
accept it so you invent excuses to dismiss it.

Post by mainframetech
Fiber evidence, that's
from LHO's shirt which is expected to be on his rifle if he ever put the
rifle to his shoulder while wearing that shirt.

And it is just his shit luck that he chose to wear the one shirt in his
closet that matched the fibers on his rifle. Another find example of the
excuses you will dream up to dismiss another damning piece of evidence.

Post by mainframetech
And I doubt he had tons
of shirts. Medical evidence? None point to Oswald as a shooter, explain
that one.

I'm supposed to explain your fantasies. The medical evidence indicates the
shots were fired from above and behind JFK. That fits with the location
where witnesses saw a gunman and shells were later found.

Post by mainframetech
Photographic evidence? How does that prove that LHO fired into
the motorcade?

It doesn't by itself. To figure out Oswald was the assassin, you have to
add up the evidence. You always want to look at the evidence piecemeal.
The Z-film shows quite clearly that the head shot was fired from behind
JFK because most of the splatter went forward.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
Any chance you would like
to list the evidence that Oswald was the shooter in the TSBD alongside the
evidence of your shooters and compare the two to see which is more
substantial?

No problem, though you have seen my list many times over. Consider
that I repeated it, since it includes the many bullet strikes in the
plaza, and they were right, left, and center. The story you tried to get
away with was that a bullet hit the head of JFK and split into 10
fragments all of which came out of a single hole in the head that was on
the right side above the ear, and then zinged all over the plaza in those
many directions! And that's not very substantial. So the multiple
strikes all over the place takes the prize.

We don't know how many fragments the bullet broke up into. We can only
count the ones that were found in the limo. Those that dispersed elsewhere
were never recovered. We know there were such fragments because the pieces
found in the limo didn't add up to a whole bullet.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Logic also is part of evidence, in that it can be applied to evidence
and you can glean much more from the items of evidence than originally
seem to be so.

Maybe someday you will give that a try.

Youy have missed out. I've used that on a number of occasions.

I must have blinked.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Different circumstances demand different kinds of investigation and
proof. In this case, there was an obvious attempt to implicate a 'patsy'
and therefore all evidence had to be strenuously checked. Attempt to
relate the JFK murder with other possibly open and shut murders won't help
figure out this case.

Typical backward thinking. You start with the assumption Oswald was a
patsy and then you look at the evidence through that prism. You make the
evidence match your assumption rather than allow the evidence to lead you
to a logical conclusion.

The PHYSICAL evidence proves conspiracy.

[Steve BH]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Different circumstances demand different kinds of investigation and
proof. In this case, there was an obvious attempt to implicate a 'patsy'
and therefore all evidence had to be strenuously checked. Attempt to
relate the JFK murder with other possibly open and shut murders won't help
figure out this case.

Typical backward thinking. You start with the assumption Oswald was a
patsy and then you look at the evidence through that prism. You make the
evidence match your assumption rather than allow the evidence to lead you
to a logical conclusion.

Patsy, patsy. Oswald says he's a "patsy" but we never take him at his real
meaning. We should remember it.

The quote is: "No, they are taking me in because of the fact that I lived
in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"

Meaning: I'm a member of an easy-to-blame-group. Same as "They pulled me
over because I was black; I'm just a patsy." Or "They rounded up all the
usual suspects; I'm a patsy!"

As Oswald meant it, it does NOT mean somebody specifically set-up, and
carefully framed in a very expert way. But somehow, we assume that's what
he was saying to us AT THAT TIME. He wasn't. Even the guy's lies are
misunderstood ("patsy" used to me simply "fool.") The word is not used
much these days, and everybody misunderstands Oswald here. But it's easy
enough in context to get what he ACTUALLY means. It conveys the idea of
group-prejudice and simple stupidity, not massive clockwork manufacturing
of evidence to fit some long pre-arranged fall-guy.

Yes, sure, Oswald (later) talking about somebody pasting his photo head on
somebody else's body in the backyard photo sounds is indeed a claim of a
careful frame-up. But that's now a different and later, day and Oswald is
by now working on a different and more desperate lie (in fact he is
suggesting the photo was made the same way he actually made his own
selective service card for "Alex J. Hidell".) Don't read all this as one
perfectly consistent tale. It's all just Oswald free-associating, and
denying whatever he feels he can (like owning a rifle, or needing curtain
rods).

"You can out-shoot a shooter, as the old cops say, but you can't out-shit
a shitter." (Meaning out-bullshit a bullshit artist). No cop can match
Verbal Kint.

[mainframetech]

Post by Steve BH

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?

I'm as anxious to see Chris's response as you are. I can tell you for fact
that it would be because I was a juror in a murder case in which that very
thing happened. One bullet was found imbedded in a wall and the other in
the floor beneath the head of the victim. No attempt was made by the
prosecution to "prove" that these recovered bullets were the ones that
struck the victim and the defense didn't try to make the ridiculous
argument that they hadn't. It was left to the common sense of the jury to
reach that conclusion and we did. We convicted the accused of murder.

Different circumstances demand different kinds of investigation and
proof. In this case, there was an obvious attempt to implicate a 'patsy'
and therefore all evidence had to be strenuously checked. Attempt to
relate the JFK murder with other possibly open and shut murders won't help
figure out this case.

Typical backward thinking. You start with the assumption Oswald was a
patsy and then you look at the evidence through that prism. You make the
evidence match your assumption rather than allow the evidence to lead you
to a logical conclusion.

Patsy, patsy. Oswald says he's a "patsy" but we never take him at his real
meaning. We should remember it.
The quote is: "No, they are taking me in because of the fact that I lived
in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"
Meaning: I'm a member of an easy-to-blame-group. Same as "They pulled me
over because I was black; I'm just a patsy." Or "They rounded up all the
usual suspects; I'm a patsy!"
As Oswald meant it, it does NOT mean somebody specifically set-up, and
carefully framed in a very expert way. But somehow, we assume that's what
he was saying to us AT THAT TIME. He wasn't. Even the guy's lies are
misunderstood ("patsy" used to me simply "fool.") The word is not used
much these days, and everybody misunderstands Oswald here. But it's easy
enough in context to get what he ACTUALLY means. It conveys the idea of
group-prejudice and simple stupidity, not massive clockwork manufacturing
of evidence to fit some long pre-arranged fall-guy.

The victim (or 'patsy') often doesn't know they've been set up. This
was partially the case for Oswald. In my day, 'patsy' meant someone that
was the fall guy or the guy that was blamed for something they didn't do,
allowing the real perpetrators to escape.

Post by Steve BH
Yes, sure, Oswald (later) talking about somebody pasting his photo head on
somebody else's body in the backyard photo sounds is indeed a claim of a
careful frame-up. But that's now a different and later, day and Oswald is
by now working on a different and more desperate lie (in fact he is
suggesting the photo was made the same way he actually made his own
selective service card for "Alex J. Hidell".) Don't read all this as one
perfectly consistent tale. It's all just Oswald free-associating, and
denying whatever he feels he can (like owning a rifle, or needing curtain
rods).

Agreed, that Oswald's words can't be trusted after his arrest.
Agreed that he brought his rifle into the TSBD, but wasn't the one that
fired it.

Post by Steve BH
"You can out-shoot a shooter, as the old cops say, but you can't out-shit
a shitter." (Meaning out-bullshit a bullshit artist). No cop can match
Verbal Kint.

Oddly enough the phrase I've heard is 'you can always sell a salesman'.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.


Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.

Chris

[Mark]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.
Chris

You're making progress. The testimony was by a crime lab tech. No
witnesses, just a through-and-through wound on the victim. Mark

[mainframetech]

Post by Mark

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.
Chris

You're making progress. The testimony was by a crime lab tech. No
witnesses, just a through-and-through wound on the victim. Mark

In the case of your question being hypothetical, you've failed to
answer the questions I posed. Given the limited info you supplied, the
questions would have to be answered. Did the tech answer those questions?
And was the case actually different than the JFK case? It seems so, since
you've offered no other info and stated that only a tech answered. It's
so nice to have those open and shut cases. Simple.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.

These are reasons jurors are expected to employ common sense. It's the
reason you wouldn't make a good juror.

Post by mainframetech
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.

I've already told you of my real life experience as a juror in which this
exact scenario occurred. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove
to us the bullets recovered from the wall and the floor were the ones that
killed the victim and no attempt was made by the defense to suggest any of
the ludicrous possibilities you have offered. If such a thing even crossed
the mind of the defense counsel, I'm sure he realized suggesting such a
thing would only make him look foolish in the minds of the jurors. And he
would have been right.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.

These are reasons jurors are expected to employ common sense. It's the
reason you wouldn't make a good juror.

More opinions. Do you ever deal with evidence and proof?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.

I've already told you of my real life experience as a juror in which this
exact scenario occurred. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove
to us the bullets recovered from the wall and the floor were the ones that
killed the victim and no attempt was made by the defense to suggest any of
the ludicrous possibilities you have offered. If such a thing even crossed
the mind of the defense counsel, I'm sure he realized suggesting such a
thing would only make him look foolish in the minds of the jurors. And he
would have been right.

Well, either the case was indeed open and shut with NO OTHER
possibilities involved like the JFK case, or you sentenced a man to life
imprisonment or execution incorrectly. That might be the fault of the
jury, or the defense counsel failing to raise questions that should have
been raised.

The 2 cases don't equate given all the other considerations.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.

These are reasons jurors are expected to employ common sense. It's the
reason you wouldn't make a good juror.

More opinions. Do you ever deal with evidence and proof?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.

I've already told you of my real life experience as a juror in which this
exact scenario occurred. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove
to us the bullets recovered from the wall and the floor were the ones that
killed the victim and no attempt was made by the defense to suggest any of
the ludicrous possibilities you have offered. If such a thing even crossed
the mind of the defense counsel, I'm sure he realized suggesting such a
thing would only make him look foolish in the minds of the jurors. And he
would have been right.

Well, either the case was indeed open and shut with NO OTHER
possibilities involved like the JFK case, or you sentenced a man to life
imprisonment or execution incorrectly.

I haven't lost sleep over it. In fact I was one of two jurors who refused
to voted for aggravated murder, Ohio's term for first degree murder,
because I didn't think the prosecution had proven prior calculation
(premeditation). The two of us held our ground and the other ten
reluctantly agreed to the simple murder conviction. The difference was the
murderer got 15 to life instead of 20 to life.

Post by mainframetech
That might be the fault of the
jury, or the defense counsel failing to raise questions that should have
been raised.

Defense counsel did the best he could with a losing hand.

Post by mainframetech
The 2 cases don't equate given all the other considerations.

It demonstrates that your demand that bullets recovered outside the body
must be proven to have passed through the body is simply a red herring you
have introduced that is never a requirement to prove in any other murder
case.

[Mark]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.

These are reasons jurors are expected to employ common sense. It's the
reason you wouldn't make a good juror.

More opinions. Do you ever deal with evidence and proof?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.

I've already told you of my real life experience as a juror in which this
exact scenario occurred. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove
to us the bullets recovered from the wall and the floor were the ones that
killed the victim and no attempt was made by the defense to suggest any of
the ludicrous possibilities you have offered. If such a thing even crossed
the mind of the defense counsel, I'm sure he realized suggesting such a
thing would only make him look foolish in the minds of the jurors. And he
would have been right.

Well, either the case was indeed open and shut with NO OTHER
possibilities involved like the JFK case, or you sentenced a man to life
imprisonment or execution incorrectly.

I haven't lost sleep over it. In fact I was one of two jurors who refused
to voted for aggravated murder, Ohio's term for first degree murder,
because I didn't think the prosecution had proven prior calculation
(premeditation). The two of us held our ground and the other ten
reluctantly agreed to the simple murder conviction. The difference was the
murderer got 15 to life instead of 20 to life.

Post by mainframetech
That might be the fault of the
jury, or the defense counsel failing to raise questions that should have
been raised.

Defense counsel did the best he could with a losing hand.

Post by mainframetech
The 2 cases don't equate given all the other considerations.

It demonstrates that your demand that bullets recovered outside the body
must be proven to have passed through the body is simply a red herring you
have introduced that is never a requirement to prove in any other murder
case.

I know you've said this to him before, but the above is as clear and basic
as you can make. (And the point of starting this topic.) CTs have an ocean
of red herring to fish from. Court adjourned.

Mark

[mainframetech]

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.

These are reasons jurors are expected to employ common sense. It's the
reason you wouldn't make a good juror.

More opinions. Do you ever deal with evidence and proof?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.

I've already told you of my real life experience as a juror in which this
exact scenario occurred. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove
to us the bullets recovered from the wall and the floor were the ones that
killed the victim and no attempt was made by the defense to suggest any of
the ludicrous possibilities you have offered. If such a thing even crossed
the mind of the defense counsel, I'm sure he realized suggesting such a
thing would only make him look foolish in the minds of the jurors. And he
would have been right.

Well, either the case was indeed open and shut with NO OTHER
possibilities involved like the JFK case, or you sentenced a man to life
imprisonment or execution incorrectly.

I haven't lost sleep over it. In fact I was one of two jurors who refused
to voted for aggravated murder, Ohio's term for first degree murder,
because I didn't think the prosecution had proven prior calculation
(premeditation). The two of us held our ground and the other ten
reluctantly agreed to the simple murder conviction. The difference was the
murderer got 15 to life instead of 20 to life.

Post by mainframetech
That might be the fault of the
jury, or the defense counsel failing to raise questions that should have
been raised.

Defense counsel did the best he could with a losing hand.

Post by mainframetech
The 2 cases don't equate given all the other considerations.

It demonstrates that your demand that bullets recovered outside the body
must be proven to have passed through the body is simply a red herring you
have introduced that is never a requirement to prove in any other murder
case.

I know you've said this to him before, but the above is as clear and basic
as you can make. (And the point of starting this topic.) CTs have an ocean
of red herring to fish from. Court adjourned.
Mark

We're in session again. It seems odd to me that you would think that
someone, particularly an LN could tell me something and I should
immediately realize my error and believe anything such a person said.
Really! I work from evidence, something that often seems to be ignored
here. Some folks seem to work on faith...in the WCR, which is as holey as
Swiss cheese.

I've arrived at my beliefs from looking at evidence, not squawking at
folks that they're wrong and expecting them to pack up and leave when I
say it. I've given my reasons for looking for tighter proof in this case
because of the effort that appears to have been made to circumvent the
natural evidence available. There are too many times when the FBI has
changed witness statements, or tried to intimidate witnesses to shut up
and repeat their stories of multiple shooters or similar problems.

If my truth bothers you, you are able to skip over my posts. Spending
time talking about me and my methods won't get you anywhere. I'm not
easily intimidated. But I'll be happy to answer questions to anyone that
speaks to me decently, and I'll answer in the same vein.

Chris

[Mark]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.

These are reasons jurors are expected to employ common sense. It's the
reason you wouldn't make a good juror.

More opinions. Do you ever deal with evidence and proof?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.

I've already told you of my real life experience as a juror in which this
exact scenario occurred. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove
to us the bullets recovered from the wall and the floor were the ones that
killed the victim and no attempt was made by the defense to suggest any of
the ludicrous possibilities you have offered. If such a thing even crossed
the mind of the defense counsel, I'm sure he realized suggesting such a
thing would only make him look foolish in the minds of the jurors. And he
would have been right.

Well, either the case was indeed open and shut with NO OTHER
possibilities involved like the JFK case, or you sentenced a man to life
imprisonment or execution incorrectly.

I haven't lost sleep over it. In fact I was one of two jurors who refused
to voted for aggravated murder, Ohio's term for first degree murder,
because I didn't think the prosecution had proven prior calculation
(premeditation). The two of us held our ground and the other ten
reluctantly agreed to the simple murder conviction. The difference was the
murderer got 15 to life instead of 20 to life.

Post by mainframetech
That might be the fault of the
jury, or the defense counsel failing to raise questions that should have
been raised.

Defense counsel did the best he could with a losing hand.

Post by mainframetech
The 2 cases don't equate given all the other considerations.

It demonstrates that your demand that bullets recovered outside the body
must be proven to have passed through the body is simply a red herring you
have introduced that is never a requirement to prove in any other murder
case.

I know you've said this to him before, but the above is as clear and basic
as you can make. (And the point of starting this topic.) CTs have an ocean
of red herring to fish from. Court adjourned.
Mark

We're in session again. It seems odd to me that you would think that
someone, particularly an LN could tell me something and I should
immediately realize my error and believe anything such a person said.
Really! I work from evidence, something that often seems to be ignored
here. Some folks seem to work on faith...in the WCR, which is as holey as
Swiss cheese.
I've arrived at my beliefs from looking at evidence, not squawking at
folks that they're wrong and expecting them to pack up and leave when I
say it. I've given my reasons for looking for tighter proof in this case
because of the effort that appears to have been made to circumvent the
natural evidence available. There are too many times when the FBI has
changed witness statements, or tried to intimidate witnesses to shut up
and repeat their stories of multiple shooters or similar problems.
If my truth bothers you, you are able to skip over my posts. Spending
time talking about me and my methods won't get you anywhere. I'm not
easily intimidated. But I'll be happy to answer questions to anyone that
speaks to me decently, and I'll answer in the same vein.
Chris

I didn't start this topic thinking I was going to change your mind. I
don't attempt the impossible. Because I know you know more or are more
capable than: a Dallas cop, a Secret Service agent, a Parkland trauma room
doctor, a Bethesda autopsy doctor, Dave Powers, General McHugh, Dr.
Burkley, Abraham Zapruder, the Warren Commission, the Rockefeller
Commission, the HSCA, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. John Coe, Dr.
Joseph Davis, Dr. George Loquvam, Dr. Charles Petty, Dr. Earl Rose, Dr.
Werner Spitz, Dr. James Weston, Dr. William Carnes, Dr. Russell Fisher,
Dr. Alan Moritz, Dr. Russell Morgan, Lt. Col. Robert McMeekin, Dr. Richard
Lindenberg, Dr. Fred Hodges, Alfred Oliver, and Robert Oswald.

I want to emphasize that this is a very small part of a much longer list.

Mark

[mainframetech]

Post by Mark

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.

These are reasons jurors are expected to employ common sense. It's the
reason you wouldn't make a good juror.

More opinions. Do you ever deal with evidence and proof?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.

I've already told you of my real life experience as a juror in which this
exact scenario occurred. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove
to us the bullets recovered from the wall and the floor were the ones that
killed the victim and no attempt was made by the defense to suggest any of
the ludicrous possibilities you have offered. If such a thing even crossed
the mind of the defense counsel, I'm sure he realized suggesting such a
thing would only make him look foolish in the minds of the jurors. And he
would have been right.

Well, either the case was indeed open and shut with NO OTHER
possibilities involved like the JFK case, or you sentenced a man to life
imprisonment or execution incorrectly.

I haven't lost sleep over it. In fact I was one of two jurors who refused
to voted for aggravated murder, Ohio's term for first degree murder,
because I didn't think the prosecution had proven prior calculation
(premeditation). The two of us held our ground and the other ten
reluctantly agreed to the simple murder conviction. The difference was the
murderer got 15 to life instead of 20 to life.

Post by mainframetech
That might be the fault of the
jury, or the defense counsel failing to raise questions that should have
been raised.

Defense counsel did the best he could with a losing hand.

Post by mainframetech
The 2 cases don't equate given all the other considerations.

It demonstrates that your demand that bullets recovered outside the body
must be proven to have passed through the body is simply a red herring you
have introduced that is never a requirement to prove in any other murder
case.

I know you've said this to him before, but the above is as clear and basic
as you can make. (And the point of starting this topic.) CTs have an ocean
of red herring to fish from. Court adjourned.
Mark

We're in session again. It seems odd to me that you would think that
someone, particularly an LN could tell me something and I should
immediately realize my error and believe anything such a person said.
Really! I work from evidence, something that often seems to be ignored
here. Some folks seem to work on faith...in the WCR, which is as holey as
Swiss cheese.
I've arrived at my beliefs from looking at evidence, not squawking at
folks that they're wrong and expecting them to pack up and leave when I
say it. I've given my reasons for looking for tighter proof in this case
because of the effort that appears to have been made to circumvent the
natural evidence available. There are too many times when the FBI has
changed witness statements, or tried to intimidate witnesses to shut up
and repeat their stories of multiple shooters or similar problems.
If my truth bothers you, you are able to skip over my posts. Spending
time talking about me and my methods won't get you anywhere. I'm not
easily intimidated. But I'll be happy to answer questions to anyone that
speaks to me decently, and I'll answer in the same vein.
Chris

I didn't start this topic thinking I was going to change your mind. I
don't attempt the impossible. Because I know you know more or are more
capable than: a Dallas cop, a Secret Service agent, a Parkland trauma room
doctor, a Bethesda autopsy doctor, Dave Powers, General McHugh, Dr.
Burkley, Abraham Zapruder, the Warren Commission, the Rockefeller
Commission, the HSCA, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. John Coe, Dr.
Joseph Davis, Dr. George Loquvam, Dr. Charles Petty, Dr. Earl Rose, Dr.
Werner Spitz, Dr. James Weston, Dr. William Carnes, Dr. Russell Fisher,
Dr. Alan Moritz, Dr. Russell Morgan, Lt. Col. Robert McMeekin, Dr. Richard
Lindenberg, Dr. Fred Hodges, Alfred Oliver, and Robert Oswald.
I want to emphasize that this is a very small part of a much longer list.
Mark

Wrong again. I'm not better at their jobs than they are, but I'm in a
position to have more and better information over the years than was
shoved on most of them. I've even used some of their quotes in proving my
points. Of course, if you don't argue for your beliefs, you don't learn
much about the knowledge of others.

And if your method of having your opinions succeed is to gather up
with others and sit around and agree with each other, you'll never learn
more.

If you have questions, I'll be around.

Chris

[Mark]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.

These are reasons jurors are expected to employ common sense. It's the
reason you wouldn't make a good juror.

More opinions. Do you ever deal with evidence and proof?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.

I've already told you of my real life experience as a juror in which this
exact scenario occurred. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove
to us the bullets recovered from the wall and the floor were the ones that
killed the victim and no attempt was made by the defense to suggest any of
the ludicrous possibilities you have offered. If such a thing even crossed
the mind of the defense counsel, I'm sure he realized suggesting such a
thing would only make him look foolish in the minds of the jurors. And he
would have been right.

Well, either the case was indeed open and shut with NO OTHER
possibilities involved like the JFK case, or you sentenced a man to life
imprisonment or execution incorrectly.

I haven't lost sleep over it. In fact I was one of two jurors who refused
to voted for aggravated murder, Ohio's term for first degree murder,
because I didn't think the prosecution had proven prior calculation
(premeditation). The two of us held our ground and the other ten
reluctantly agreed to the simple murder conviction. The difference was the
murderer got 15 to life instead of 20 to life.

Post by mainframetech
That might be the fault of the
jury, or the defense counsel failing to raise questions that should have
been raised.

Defense counsel did the best he could with a losing hand.

Post by mainframetech
The 2 cases don't equate given all the other considerations.

It demonstrates that your demand that bullets recovered outside the body
must be proven to have passed through the body is simply a red herring you
have introduced that is never a requirement to prove in any other murder
case.

I know you've said this to him before, but the above is as clear and basic
as you can make. (And the point of starting this topic.) CTs have an ocean
of red herring to fish from. Court adjourned.
Mark

We're in session again. It seems odd to me that you would think that
someone, particularly an LN could tell me something and I should
immediately realize my error and believe anything such a person said.
Really! I work from evidence, something that often seems to be ignored
here. Some folks seem to work on faith...in the WCR, which is as holey as
Swiss cheese.
I've arrived at my beliefs from looking at evidence, not squawking at
folks that they're wrong and expecting them to pack up and leave when I
say it. I've given my reasons for looking for tighter proof in this case
because of the effort that appears to have been made to circumvent the
natural evidence available. There are too many times when the FBI has
changed witness statements, or tried to intimidate witnesses to shut up
and repeat their stories of multiple shooters or similar problems.
If my truth bothers you, you are able to skip over my posts. Spending
time talking about me and my methods won't get you anywhere. I'm not
easily intimidated. But I'll be happy to answer questions to anyone that
speaks to me decently, and I'll answer in the same vein.
Chris

I didn't start this topic thinking I was going to change your mind. I
don't attempt the impossible. Because I know you know more or are more
capable than: a Dallas cop, a Secret Service agent, a Parkland trauma room
doctor, a Bethesda autopsy doctor, Dave Powers, General McHugh, Dr.
Burkley, Abraham Zapruder, the Warren Commission, the Rockefeller
Commission, the HSCA, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. John Coe, Dr.
Joseph Davis, Dr. George Loquvam, Dr. Charles Petty, Dr. Earl Rose, Dr.
Werner Spitz, Dr. James Weston, Dr. William Carnes, Dr. Russell Fisher,
Dr. Alan Moritz, Dr. Russell Morgan, Lt. Col. Robert McMeekin, Dr. Richard
Lindenberg, Dr. Fred Hodges, Alfred Oliver, and Robert Oswald.
I want to emphasize that this is a very small part of a much longer list.
Mark

Wrong again. I'm not better at their jobs than they are, but I'm in a
position to have more and better information over the years than was
shoved on most of them. I've even used some of their quotes in proving my
points. Of course, if you don't argue for your beliefs, you don't learn
much about the knowledge of others.
And if your method of having your opinions succeed is to gather up
with others and sit around and agree with each other, you'll never learn
more.
If you have questions, I'll be around.
Chris

From all your words, here's the takeaway: ". . . I'm in a position to have
more and better information over the years than was shoved on most of
them."

What better information do you have that leads you to believe General
McHugh and Dave Powers were wrong when they said JFK's casket was never
left unattended on AF-1?

What better information do you have that leads you to believe the Ramsey
Clark Commission medical panel, the HSCA medical panel and the Rockefeller
Commission pathologists were wrong when they concluded that the medical
evidence showed JFK's head was struck by one bullet fired from behind and
to the right of the president?

Mark

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.

These are reasons jurors are expected to employ common sense. It's the
reason you wouldn't make a good juror.

More opinions. Do you ever deal with evidence and proof?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.

I've already told you of my real life experience as a juror in which this
exact scenario occurred. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove
to us the bullets recovered from the wall and the floor were the ones that
killed the victim and no attempt was made by the defense to suggest any of
the ludicrous possibilities you have offered. If such a thing even crossed
the mind of the defense counsel, I'm sure he realized suggesting such a
thing would only make him look foolish in the minds of the jurors. And he
would have been right.

Well, either the case was indeed open and shut with NO OTHER
possibilities involved like the JFK case, or you sentenced a man to life
imprisonment or execution incorrectly.

I haven't lost sleep over it. In fact I was one of two jurors who refused
to voted for aggravated murder, Ohio's term for first degree murder,
because I didn't think the prosecution had proven prior calculation
(premeditation). The two of us held our ground and the other ten
reluctantly agreed to the simple murder conviction. The difference was the
murderer got 15 to life instead of 20 to life.

Post by mainframetech
That might be the fault of the
jury, or the defense counsel failing to raise questions that should have
been raised.

Defense counsel did the best he could with a losing hand.

Post by mainframetech
The 2 cases don't equate given all the other considerations.

It demonstrates that your demand that bullets recovered outside the body
must be proven to have passed through the body is simply a red herring you
have introduced that is never a requirement to prove in any other murder
case.

WRONG! It demonstrates nothing of the kind! I've made a statement
based on the evidence we have and that comes out that no MC type bullet
hit or hurt anyone. I have specified the proof, you just need to pretend
to yourself that there isn't any proof so you can sleep at night. That
evidence depends on where those 2 bullets were found, and what their
condition was. The same for the Walker bullet which figures in to this
part of the case. You're once again trying to beat a dead horse. All
this has been answered over and over.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark
Chris: If a bullet that went through a murder victim, embedded in a wall
behind him, and was retrieved and proven to be the bullet fired by the
suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, should that
information be allowed into evidence in a criminal court case?
Mark

Who was giving the evidence? What form was it in? a written note or a
witness, or a movie, or what? Were there witnesses to the firing of the
weapon and the bullet passing through the victim to hit the wall, or was
it simply assumed? Was the shooter playing with the weapon and it went
off before the victim came near, so that the bullet went into the all, but
not through the victim? and any number of other possibilities.

These are reasons jurors are expected to employ common sense. It's the
reason you wouldn't make a good juror.

Post by mainframetech
Without knowing all the particulars I could only guess that the
information should be told in court. But that may be modified by the
specifics of the situation.

I've already told you of my real life experience as a juror in which this
exact scenario occurred. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove
to us the bullets recovered from the wall and the floor were the ones that
killed the victim and no attempt was made by the defense to suggest any of
the ludicrous possibilities you have offered. If such a thing even crossed
the mind of the defense counsel, I'm sure he realized suggesting such a
thing would only make him look foolish in the minds of the jurors. And he
would have been right.

Anecdotal situations do not mean that is the proper or legal way to do
things.