>> On 8/18/2012 10:51 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In article <502fa2a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>> On 8/18/2012 10:08 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> ..

>>>>>>> Depends on the projectile of course.  A military FMJ would be less
>>>>>>> susceptible to massive disintegration, but still fail if the jacket splits
>>>>>>> on contact.  If the human skull can cause this kind of failure so can
>>>>>>> street pavement or a cement curb.  Donahue was convinced the massive
>>>>>>> deformation of the two fragments was caused by a missed shot that
>>>>>>> ricocheted off the street surface into the Limousine.  The reason being
>>>>>>> there was no blood or human tissue found on those fragments to indicate
>>>>>>> they passed through a human body.

>>>>>> False assumption. There does not have to be blood or human tissue on the
>>>>>> bullet fragments, especially after they were washed for testing.

>>>>> My guess is that no-one in this censored forum will bother to actually check out
>>>>> the testimony to decide who's correct... as it is, neither.

>>>>> Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier,
>>>>> did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by
>>>>> way of cleaning or otherwise?
>>>>> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other
>>>>> material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped
>>>>> off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been
>>>>> necessary.
>>>>> Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
>>>>> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

>>>>> So there *was* foreign material which could have been blood, and no; they were
>>>>> *NOT* "washed for testing".

>>>> You just quoted him saying it was wiped off. There was no attempt to
>>>> preserve it for testing. And he could be tell if it was blood. He did
>>>> not test it.

>>> Sorry Tony... "Washed off" doesn't have the same connotation as "wiped
>>> off"... and I *KNOW* you know the difference.

>>> It would be difficult indeed to "wipe" blood off of a striated surface,
>>> but quite easy to "wash" it off.

>> The fragments were washed off before testing.

> No Tony... they were "wiped" off, which does not imply anything other than
> a dry cloth.

> Nor did any wiping [or as you claim, washing] stop any evidence of residue
> - IT WAS TESTIFIED TO!

> Now tell us Tony - why did you tacitly agree that there wasn't any residue
> on the fragments?

>>> Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to
>>> had the facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed
>>> that there was no residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed".
>>> That's simply untrue.

>> I never said there was no residue. There may well have been residue when
>> they were found. There was no residue by the time they were tested.

> It's too bad that statements like this cannot be accurately labeled in
> this censored forum. [See the open forum for more information...]

> You failed to correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found
> on the two fragments.

> Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?

>>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...

>>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>>> had been "washed".

>>> Wrong on both counts.

>> You can't test the evidence with residue on it.

> Sorry Tony, this statement of yours has *nothing* to do with anything I've
> stated.

> Here it is again:

> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...