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