home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   alt.conspiracy.jfk      Discussing the assassination of JFK      99,700 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 98,014 of 99,700   
   BT George to Gil Jesus   
   Re: A Question for the Lone Nutters on t   
   13 Nov 23 09:05:21   
   
   From: brockgeorge26@gmail.com   
      
   On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 1:29:14 PM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 12:50:33 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:   
   > First of all, the topic isn't the bullets, it's the empty shells.    
   >    
   Surely you are able to understand the *connection* between the two?   
      
   > I believe the shells were fired from the handgun because they displayed a   
   bulging common with a .38 special round.    
   > They also contained the impression of the weapon's firing pin and the breech   
   face. ( 7 HSCA 407-408 )    
   >    
   > > 3) The shells ejected at the scene ( as found and as seen by witnesses who   
   later ID’d Oswald ) could all be matched to Oswald’s pistol to the   
   exclusion of all other weapons in the world.    
   >    
   > And how many of those witnesses identified the shells currently in evidence   
   as the shells they found ?    
   > You don't have to name them, just give us a number.   
      
   Not sure why that matters?  Unless one--as you apparently do--assumes they   
   were switched to frame your patsy.  (But if so, can you explain why they   
   didn't also just switch to *matching* bullets, which would have been much more   
   convenient for the "frame    
   up".)  I am sure you know that the records indicate that Barbara and Virginia   
   Davis saw a man dumping out shells from what is manifestly a revolver and   
   later identified Oswald as being that man.  Likewise, I am sure you are aware   
   that the records    
   indicate both women found one shell each and pointed them out to the DPD    
   Hence we have strong reason to say at least 2 witnesses can be described as I   
   have in 3) above.   
      
   If you mean "positively" ID'd the shells by marking or something, you will   
   need to show that 1963 it was standard Police practice to have witnesses   
   formally ID the shells that police were in possession of because *they*   
   discovered them.  I would also ask    
   you to show where they contemporaneously disputed that any of the shells in   
   evidence were the ones they found.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca