Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by MarkPost by bigdogPost by MarkChris: 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 bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechBecause 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 bigdogPost by mainframetechYour 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 bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechWhen 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 bigdogPost by mainframetechOf 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 bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogBullets 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 bigdogPost by mainframetechFirst, 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 bigdogPost by mainframetechMany 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 bigdogPost by mainframetechSecond, 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 bigdogPost by mainframetechAs 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 bigdogPost by mainframetechSo 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