I'll be damned. A CT ADMITTING TO SPECULATION!!!
YoHarvey
Howard Brennan:
there are several other possible reasons that the shells were planted
behind the east window, but I wasn't there at the time, so I can only
speculate.
Wow, read that again!! A CT admitting to speculation. This should be
in the Smithsonian!!!
Walt
You've been communicating with Tomnln too much..... He says he won't
speculate.
It's no secret that any intellgent person will speculate about an
event. A good detective will speculate and set up possible scenarios
about a crime based on the evidence availble to him. He then will
procede with the information and evidence available to solve the
crime. If something arises to show that his speculation is flawed he
will correct the flaw or drop that entire line of speculation.
Only a real dunce would accept information as being a fact, when there
is so much information that reveals the information is absolutely
false. The Warren Commission claimed that Oswald fired that Carcano
and killed JFK. They based that on WHAT exactly?? Well some spent
shells were found near a half open window on the sixth floor, and a
rifle was found under a pile of boxes across the room from the spent
shells. An eyewitness said he saw a man firing a rifle from a sixth
floor window.
Let's take one step at a time.....
The spent shells.....
Q...Can we prove that they were fired at the time of the shooting, ie;
do they still smell of burnt powder?
A... Donno.... That wasn't checked. WHAT???? You didn't even
sniff the shells to see if they smelled like the were
freshly fired??
Well let me ask you this....
Q.... Was there any fingerprints or other evidence on the spent
shells?
A.....Well there were no fingerprints but we did find evidence that
one of he shells had been "dry fired "in that rifle.
well Ok tell me about that...What's dry fired?
A.... Dry fired means the spent shell was in the chamber and the
firing pin hit that spent primer cap couple of times.
We also found a scratch on the side of the spent shell that was made
by the rifle's shell follower.
Q....Thank you...Now, If I understand the facts correctly that shell
would have had to have been the LAST one in the clip in order for the
follower to contact it, is that correct?
A.... Yes that's right.
Q.... But wasn't there a live round in the chamber when the gun was
found?
A.... Yes there was.
Q....OK So that live round would have been the last round in the clip
isn't that true?
A... Yes.
Q.....Well if that live round was the last round and the follower was
incontact with it why does one of the spent shells show that it had
been dry fired and it had been in contact with the follower?
A.... Well the obvious answer is that shell had not been fired that
day....It had been fired at some other time and someother place and
then dropped at the scene.
Q....Well how about the rifle?.... Did you sniff the firing chamber
when you opened the bolt?
A......Well no we didn't do that....Yes I know is SOP, but I guess we
just forgot again to perform that very elementary test.
Q........Well Ok then, We can't be certain about when those shells
were fired, nor can we know if the rifle had been fired recently. How
about where the rifle was found?? Was it concealed or lying out in
the open??
A..... Oh it was concealed under a pile of boxes.
Q.... Didn't it strike you as a bit odd that a killer would take the
time to hide his gun ?? Don't you think he would have had flight from
the scene as his first priority. .... And don't bother to lie and tell
me he merely tossed it down behind some boxes as he fled, we both know
that the cops who found that rifle had to unpile boxes that were piled
over it before they could see the rifle on the floor. Surely you're
not gonna suggest that Oswald stopped and carefully put the rifle on
the floor and then piled the boxes on top of it, are you??
Well ok....Let's talk about the eyewitness and what he said.
Oh do you mean Howard Brennan?
Q....Yes, Howard Brennan... Now what did Mr.Brennan say just minutes
after the shooting?
A...Well he gave an affidavit in which he wrote down his observations.
Q....OK let's look at that affidavit.... Did he give a description
that matched Oswald in that affidavit?
A.... Well not exactly.... Brennan said the man he saw was in his
early thirties, and Oswald was just 24....He also said the gunman
weighed about 165 to 175, and Oswald only weighed 140.
Q.....Well how about the clothing did it match the clothes we know
Oswald was wearing at the time??
A.... No .... Brennan said the gunman was dressed in light colored
clothes, probably a dingy white shirt and trousers, while Oswald was
dressed in dark clothing which consisted of a reddish brown shirt and
dark gray trousers.
Well, my dear Von Pea Brain, that should be enough to show you that
you're basing your contention on SPECULATION that don't even fit the
FACTS.
ROTFLMAO!!
Walt
Gil Jesus
^5 Walt. You stated the case perfectly.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
What an absolutely ignorant, irresponsible posting. Hint for ya
Walt: Anybody, anybody who would being any posting" "it's no secret"
is HIDING SOMETHING. Duh. We are not discussing accepting evidence
without research. As for THIS COMMENT: "A good detective wil
speculate and set up possible scenarios
about a crime based on the evidence to him". WTF does that mean? One
piece of evidence leads to ANOTHER piece etc., etc....Detectives do
NOT speculate. They are trained to know how to FIND evidence and
follow that evidence.
Anybody surprised our resident pathological lying homophobic racist
Chico Jesus agrees with the above?? I DON'T THINK SO lol.
Walt
Huh?? what the hell does this mean??.... Anybody, anybody who would
being any posting"
What kinda language is that?? It's gibberish.....
"it's no secret"
> is HIDING SOMETHING. Duh. We are not discussing accepting evidence
> without research. As for THIS COMMENT: "A good detective wil
> speculate and set up possible scenarios
> about a crime based on the evidence to him". WTF does that mean? One
> piece of evidence leads to ANOTHER piece etc., etc....Detectives do
> NOT speculate. They are trained to know how to FIND evidence and
> follow that evidence.
Nonsense..... A good detective may speculate that the husband is
responsible for his wife's disappearance but he can't arrest him until
he has solid evidence that can be presented at trial. Look at the
Stacey Peterson case that's in the headlines this very day. Many are
SPECULATING that Peterson murdered Stacey but they lack the solid
evidence (Her corpse) needed to arrest him.
One piece of evidence leads to ANOTHER piece etc., etc. ....
I gotta admit yer right.... So why wasn't that procedure used in the
case of the evidence against Oswald??
Let's take a look at the way the evidence was handled, one step at a
time.....
The bottom line is:....Had they used the evidence as you so rightly
stated, they would have undoubtedly found the shells that were picked
up from the floor were simply dropped there. The shells themselves
indicated that they had not been fired from the so called "Sniper's
Nest".
>
> Anybody surprised our resident pathological lying homophobic racist
> Chico Jesus agrees with the above?? I DON'T THINK SO lol.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Learn to copy accurately..... Here's what I actually wrote: "A good
detective will speculate and set up possible scenarios about a crime,
based on the evidence available to him.
WTF does that mean?
Do I really need to explain what this stement means?? Yer not really
that obtuse...Or are you?
One piece of evidence leads to ANOTHER piece etc., etc.
It's not necessarily that one piece leads to another ....although that
could be true. More accurately you could say that each piece fits in
with the other pieces to form a coherent picture. There may be a few
pieces missing, but if there are enough pieces that fit together a
coherent picture can still be formed.
Walt
...Detectives do
> NOT speculate. They are trained to know how to FIND evidence and
> follow that evidence.
>
> Anybody surprised our resident pathological lying homophobic racist
> Chico Jesus agrees with the above?? I DON'T THINK SO lol.- Hide quoted text -
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
gotta admit yer right.... So why wasn't that procedure used in the
case of the evidence against Oswald??
Simple reasons Walt. This was the assassination of POTUS. You had
human beings involved and human beings make mistakes. The problem is,
EVERY single mistake in this case is judged by CT's to be sinister,
common sense be damned. This case was in many respects NO different
than many murder cases EXCEPT it was under the glare of public
scrutiny. IMHO, had the BEST forensic pathologists in America
conducted the autopsy, many of the issues addressed today would not
exist and the Kennedy family could live in peace.
Walt
C'mon....Yer makin excuses. Sure humans make mistakes but there is
no reason not to correct them....Especially in the this case, the
murder of the President of the United States.
There is slim chance that you could be right about "SOME" of the law
officers....They may have made mistakes and were simply covering up to
avoid censure..... but there's just too much evidence that the DPD
higher ranking officers were DELIBERATELY altering the evidence and
fabricating evidence.
No not every mistake is viewed as sinister..... But most of the
"mistakes" were not mistakes at all they were deliberate fabrications
and falsifications.
This case was in many respects NO different than many murder cases
EXCEPT it was under the glare of public
scrutiny.
Yer right it was under the glare of public scrutiny...which is all the
more reason to make sure mistakes are held to a minimum.
IMHO, had the BEST forensic pathologists in America conducted the
autopsy, many of the issues addressed today would not exist and the
Kennedy family could live in peace.
I totally disagree.... If the best pathologists had conducted the
autopsy completely free of interference and intimidation there is no
doubt in my mind that the conspirators could not have pulled off the
hoax of a lone nut firing from the TSBD.
They would have found that JFK had been hit in the throat by a bullet
fired from the front and he had been hit in the head by two bullets
striking almost simultaneously, one from the from the front and other
from the rear. Oswald probably would not have been murdered, and the
amoral pirate who seized the seat of power with the death of JFK would
have been shot for comitting treason, and murder.
Of course I realize that if a honest investigation and autopsy had
been performed the country might have been ripped apart because the
citizen suckers would no longer have allowed themselves to be governed
by crooked, silver tongued, politicians.
Walt