Bullet with no blood or tissue on it.
Maggsy
this be if it was the real bullet? Also there was no fabric threads on
the bullet. Why was this?
Bud
You can`t produce an expert who says blood or fabric should have
been found on this bullet. Why is this?
74030...@compuserve.com
Most probably because of the smoothness of the metal and speed it was
traveling. How many jacketed rifle bullets that pass through dressed
human bodies have blood and fibers on them?
s/f Dolan
a1e...@verizon.net
The missile that passed through Governor Connally's wrist struck with
part of its unprotected lead and shed a few fragments from its base.
Huge stresses from the impact would have embedded organic material
into the remaining portion of the soft lead.
Similar considerations apply to the missile that entered Connally's
thigh and shed a fragment.
So I modify the original question and ask why was no organic material
found embedded in the soft lead extruding from CE 399?
Herbert
Gil Jesus
1. There was no blood from either victim on the bullet, despite its
coming to rest in Governor Connally's thigh before "falling out ".
2. There was no bone particles from Governor Connally on the bullet
despite its destruction of 4 inches of his fifth rib and the
fracturing of the large bone in the forearm.
3. There was no clothing fibers from either victim on the bullet
despite its having gone through 11 layers of clothing.
coat-shirt Kennedy
coat-shirt-shirt-coat-coat sleeve-shirt sleeve- shirt sleeve-coat
sleeve- pants leg Connally
4. The man who found the bullet at Parkland told Josiah Thompson that
CE 399 was NOT that bullet.
5. The man who found the bullet said that the bullet he found at
Parkland was NOT from Governor Connally's stretcher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA68-rlXVIY
CONCLUSION:
CE 399 was never "found" at Parkland Hospital.
CE 399 never rolled off Governor Connally's stretcher.
CE 399 never went through a human body or did the massive damage
suffered by Gov. Connally.
CE 399 never went through any type of clothing fabric.
THEREFORE:
CE 399 was a "plant" that was fired from the Oswald rifle while the
rifle was in the hands oif authorities to frame Oswald for the crime.
There simply is no other sensible explanation.
David Von Pein
>>> "[Robert] Frazier [of the FBI] testfied that the bullet had no blood or tissue on it. How can this be if it was the real bullet? Also[,] there was no fabric threads on the bullet. Why was this?" <<<
Nobody knows for certain if there was any blood or tissue or fabric on
bullet CE399 when Darrell Tomlinson picked it up off of Connally's
stretcher, because (per Bob Frazier's WC testimony) the bullet was
never tested for blood or bodily tissue.
Plus, we also know that the stretcher bullet was placed into the
pockets of at least two of the men who initially handled it at
Parkland Hospital (O.P. Wright and Secret Service agent Richard
Johnsen). We can never know, therefore, how much bodily residue or
fabric was wiped off of the bullet as a result of that type of shoddy
handling.
Via Bob Frazier's Warren Commission testimony:
MEL EISENBERG -- "Did you prepare the bullet in any way for
examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?"
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was
clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way."
EISENBERG -- "There was no blood or similar material on the bullet
when you received it?"
FRAZIER -- "Not any which would interfere with the examination, no,
sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been
removed just in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually
clean blood or tissue off of the bullet."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
========================================
ADDENDUM:
"One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have
any blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that
must have been on it were removed by someone...almost as a matter of
course. In all the evidence bullets I handled in court in murder cases
during my prosecutorial career, none had any visible blood on
them. ....
"Interestingly, [the FBI's Robert] Frazier testified that with
respect to the two main bullet fragments found in the presidential
limousine [CE567 & CE569], "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"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 425 of "Reclaiming
History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)
========================================
a1e...@verizon.net
> >>> "[Robert] Frazier [of the FBI] testfied that the bullet had no blood or tissue on it. How can this be if it was the real bullet? Also[,] there was no fabric threads on the bullet. Why was this?" <<<
>
> Nobody knows for certain if there was any blood or tissue or fabric on
> bullet CE399 when Darrell Tomlinson picked it up off of Connally's
> stretcher, because (per Bob Frazier's WC testimony) the bullet was
> never tested for blood or bodily tissue.
>
> Plus, we also know that the stretcher bullet was placed into the
> pockets of at least two of the men who initially handled it at
> Parkland Hospital (O.P. Wright and Secret Service agent Richard
> Johnsen). We can never know, therefore, how much bodily residue or
> fabric was wiped off of the bullet as a result of that type of shoddy
> handling.
Hey, David. We are not talking about smeared blood on the surface of
the bullet. Instead, a stress of tons per square inch embedded tissues
into the soft lead that shed the fragments recovered from the wrist
and X-rayed in the thigh.
Herbert
David Von Pein
There was no test done on the bullet for blood or tissue. So why does
this silly topic keep coming up at JFK discussion boards at all? Just
for the sport of it?
Nobody knows for certain if there was blood anywhere on that bullet or
not.
a1e...@verizon.net
You are indeed gullible.
By late December of 1963 or early January of 1964, the ballistic
evidence was undergoing state-of-the-art testing. At that time, mass
spectroscopy and gas chromatography were the new techniques for
detection of inorganic and organic materials. These advanced tests
gave the authorities foreknowledge of the inconclusive outcomes of the
standard testing techniques employed during the spring 1964.
So they knew just what questions to ask and which falsehoods to
relate.
Herbert
David Von Pein
"Now there may have been slight traces which could have been
removed just in ordinary handling..." -- ROBERT A. FRAZIER
Let me guess, Herbert -- Frazier's a rotten liar and cover-up agent.
Right?
a1e...@verizon.net
Let me guess, David. — You have no reply to my earlier remarks. I
said:
"Hey, David. We are not talking about smeared blood on the surface of
the bullet. Instead, a stress of tons per square inch embedded
tissues
into the soft lead that shed the fragments recovered from the wrist
and X-rayed in the thigh."
So you pretend that the issue is something else.
BTW, David. You should take a course in crisis management. They do not
need to employ liars when they use security to control what
individuals know.
Herbert
Gil Jesus
> � � � "Now there may have been slight traces which could have been
> removed just in ordinary handling..." -- ROBERT A. FRAZIER
>
> Let me guess, Herbert -- Frazier's a rotten liar and cover-up agent.
> Right?
may have......could have
this is EVIDENCE connecting the bullet with the victims ?
roflmao,roflmao
David Von Pein
>>> "this is EVIDENCE connecting the bullet with the victims?" <<<
No, retard. It's an FBI man, under oath, telling the truth as he knew
it -- i.e., there MAY have been some "slight traces" of blood on CE399
that were removed in the course of normal, regular handling (probably
by Wright & Johnsen, and possibly others).
And on a related matter concerning CE567/569:
"Interestingly, [Robert] Frazier testified that with respect to
robc...@netscape.com
> There was no test done on the bullet for blood or tissue. So why does
> this silly topic keep coming up at JFK discussion boards at all? Just
> for the sport of it?
Because there SHOULD have been tests done, this will your cause one
day in court. Let's see what Frazier says about this:
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 we see there was blood on the fragments AND Frazier decided to WIPE
IT OFF BEFORE he did his examination! Isn't this TAMPERING with the
evidence? Why were they afraid to look at this blood and see if it
matched JFK's and JBC's types at the very least? I know they did NOT
have DNA stuff back then but surely blood was evaluated in murders in
some way in 1963.
Now for CE399:
Mr. EISENBERG - You also mentioned there was blood or some other
substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination,
or was there a test to determine what the substance was?
Mr. FRAZIER - **No, there was no test made of the materials.**
I would ascertain this is INEXCUSABLE in a murder case, especially one
that involves the President of the country, and the lack of any test
is NOT the substution for proof either. IOW, when the defense would
ask for evidence showing the bullets had been tested to see if they
matched to JFK (or whatever they did with blood back then) and JBC in
terms of blood matching they would had to say they did NO tests! This
would have been huge for the defense.
I can see NO reason why the blood on the fragments and CE399 would NOT
be examined to see if it matched the types of JFK and JBC at the very
least. What kind of investigation doesn't do this?
> Nobody knows for certain if there was blood anywhere on that bullet or
> not.
YOU are wrong Dave, Frazier said there was blood on the fragments and
there was some substance on CE399 (boy it would be nice to know what
this substance was, huh?) that he did NOT test for. IMO, if he could
tell blood was on the fragments he should have been able to tell
whether or not CE399 had blood on it as well.
What about the total lack of clothing striations? A bullet will pick
up these marks as it goes through the clothing yet CE399 had NONE.
aeffects
[...]
>
> Hurry along now, and have 'curiousgeorge1' rate my post with one star.
>
you actually think anyone gives a shit about rating YOUR posts here?
ROTFLMFAO! You, a no-nothing insurance puke who drags an
innocentfamily into your utter failings here? Oh-shit your making all
CT's day .....
David Von Pein
There are almost too many grammatical errors in that last tirade of
Mr. Crackpipe's to keep track of. Imagine what the error count would
be if Healy The Retarded Kook actually were to string together more
than a few incoherent words in the same post (which has never once
happened, of course)?
robc...@netscape.com
>
> Exactly how many murders have you studied in your life?
Besides the assassinations? ONE, I was called in to investigate the
murder of YOUR BRAIN! For some reason your mom that you had one to
begin with? LOL!!!
> Isn't it ridiculous to use forensic standards that were developed
> decades later on a crime committed years before the standards were
> widely in practice?
I mentioned that Chuck if you were paying attention, obviously NOT,
but to argue there were NO standards for blood testing in 1963 is a
lie. Certainly, removing blood from a piece of evidence before it was
checked and catalog is a no-no in book, this is called TAMPERING WITH
EVIDENCE!
The fact Frazier felt comforatable admitting he did this while
suppposedly UNDER OATH tells you all you need to know about the WC's
rule of perjury, huh?
> In light of the fact that CE399 is ballistically matched to Oswald's
> rifle, your contention that this lack of testing for blood evidence
> would have been *huge* for the defense is childish, and it shows how
> amateurish your buff theories are.
Really, what does matching a bullet to a rifle prove when you CAN'T
prove it was inside the victim(s), that it had a chain of custody,
that the defendent EVER owned the alleged rifle you are matching the
bullet to, and that the defendent fired the said alleged murder weapon
at the victim(s) you are accusing him of killing or hurting?
In case you CAN'T figure this question out the answer is NOTHING!
> Why don't you do some real research, and dig up stats from the 60's
> that show how frequently crime bullets matched exclusively to a murder
> weapon were tested for residual blood of the victim?
Why don't you prove how matching CE399 to CE139 PROVES anything
regarding LHO?
> Hurry along now, and have 'curiousgeorge1' rate my post with one star.
Don't need to run along, as I'm sure you will be the ONE running from
the two questions I posed for you!
> Pretty silly that you consider yourself a JFK *researcher*, and yet
> you can't figure out the 'curiousgeorge1' thing.
Not as funny as a guy who approves loans to people who CAN'T afford
them and contributes to destroying a country's economy, huh?
> You're a loser.
Maybe, but I hope you have good security because the longer we go in
this recession (some think we are in a depression already) the UNRULY
the mobs will get, and they will be looking for those "LOAN SHARKS"
who helped ruined the economy!
Don't you love how a man who rips off people and banks has the gall to
call someone else a loser? Oh, the irony of it all!
robc...@netscape.com
> On Feb 25, 11:10 am, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
> > > Rob,
>
> > > Exactly how many murders have you studied in your life?
>
> > Besides the assassinations? ONE, I was called in to investigate the
> > murder of YOUR BRAIN! For some reason your mom that you had one to
> > begin with? LOL!!!
>
> What else do ya' got...
Like Chuck does, huh? What does that have to do with anything, the
MEMBERS of your beloved WC had NO experience in murder investigations
and that DIDN'T stop them from claiming things, did it?
> > > Isn't it ridiculous to use forensic standards that were developed
> > > decades later on a crime committed years before the standards were
> > > widely in practice?
>
> > I mentioned that Chuck if you were paying attention, obviously NOT,
> > but to argue there were NO standards for blood testing in 1963 is a
> > lie. Certainly, removing blood from a piece of evidence before it was
> > checked and catalog is a no-no in book, this is called TAMPERING WITH
> > EVIDENCE!
>
> You didn't answer my question. Let's try again. Isn't it ridiculous to
> use forensic standards that were developed
> decades later on a crime committed years before the standards were
> widely in practice?
Who is doing this Einstein? Do you have a problem with the English
language (we know the clients he has ripped off obviously do!)? I
said there were standards back then, I am NOT saying they could have
done DNA testing, but to claim they did NOT have any is a lie.
Besides, if you kept up you would know the fragments were tested in
2000 by the National Archives and they us the standard "inconclusive"
from them on the DNA testing. They failed to mention in what way they
were "inconclusive", but the material of non-blood type was determined
to be of a textile paper-based nature, meaning it did NOT match JFK's
shirt (one of the things it was tested against).
These tests just left more confusion and doubt as the question of how
this type of material got on them comes to mind.
In short, you still CAN'T link them to JFK or JBC, thus you CAN'T link
them to the crime you are accusing LHO of committing.
> > The fact Frazier felt comforatable admitting he did this while
> > suppposedly UNDER OATH tells you all you need to know about the WC's
> > rule of perjury, huh?
>
> What it tells you is that he wiped the bullet clean before doing his
> examination. the fact that you read in all sorts of fantastic
> conspiracy sh*t into his actions shows why you are considered a world-
> class kook. What else do ya' got, Rob?
LOL!! So the removal of key information is NOT tampering with evidence
in Chuck's mind? See how easily he lies? Those poor, confused dupes
he sold mortgages to NEVER saw it coming probably!
> > > In light of the fact that CE399 is ballistically matched to Oswald's
> > > rifle, your contention that this lack of testing for blood evidence
> > > would have been *huge* for the defense is childish, and it shows how
> > > amateurish your buff theories are.
>
> > Really, what does matching a bullet to a rifle prove when you CAN'T
> > prove it was inside the victim(s), that it had a chain of custody,
> > that the defendent EVER owned the alleged rifle you are matching the
> > bullet to, and that the defendent fired the said alleged murder weapon
> > at the victim(s) you are accusing him of killing or hurting?
>
> What other explanation (besides the goofy *planted bullet* theory) is
> there for CE399? Wake up. CE399 was fired from Oswalds carcano. End of
> story.
Who cares? I don't NEED to come up with another theory UNLESS I want
to! This is the part you LNers NEVER get, all I have to do is show
your theory and claims are full of crap, then the obvious conclusion
is your assertion that LHO shot and killed JFK and JDT by himself is
shown to be the lie it is.
Wake up! Is this guy for real? He is on here lying through his teeth
and he is telling me to wake up! LOL!! Prove the alleged murder
weapon was ordered and received by LHO! Once you do that, good luck
as many better than you have tried and failed, we cane move on to the
other issues.
> > In case you CAN'T figure this question out the answer is NOTHING!
>
> > > Why don't you do some real research, and dig up stats from the 60's
> > > that show how frequently crime bullets matched exclusively to a murder
> > > weapon were tested for residual blood of the victim?
>
> > Why don't you prove how matching CE399 to CE139 PROVES anything
> > regarding LHO?
>
> Prove it to a normal person or to you, a kook?
Proves what? YOU can't even LINK CE-139 to LHO, so what have you
proven? Chuck suffers from the problem all LNers suffer from -- he
CONFUSES claims by our governement with PROOF!
> Your conclusions and research is childish, Rob.
LOL!! This from a guy who believes the fairy-tales his governement
feeds him! He would have fit perfectly into Nazi Germany society!
Don't question anything is his motto.
> You rant like a high
> school sophomore who just finished reading Rush to Judgment for the
> first time. Unless you can show CE399 was treated remarkably different
> than other bullets from other crimes, you have zero.
LOL!! Here we see this again. He is SUPPORTING a group who NEVER
PROVED CE399 is the bullet found in the first place! Make CE399 valid
and I'll happily discuss this with you, but I'm NOT going to refute
something that has NEVER been proven to be a bullet inside of JFK or
JBC. Why would I refute a negative?
> > > Hurry along now, and have 'curiousgeorge1' rate my post with one star.
>
> > Don't need to run along, as I'm sure you will be the ONE running from
> > the two questions I posed for you!
>
> > > Pretty silly that you consider yourself a JFK *researcher*, and yet
> > > you can't figure out the 'curiousgeorge1' thing.
>
> > Not as funny as a guy who approves loans to people who CAN'T afford
> > them and contributes to destroying a country's economy, huh?
>
> You must have me mistaken with someone else. I'm still in business,
> writing good loans for good people. (I'm sure that leaves you out.)
Sure, YOU are in the DENIAL stage, I get it. I wouldn't readily admit
it either as those mobs are going to start forming soon, I'm sure.
Perhaps you will get the same kind of justice JFK got!
> > > You're a loser.
>
> > Maybe, but I hope you have good security because the longer we go in
> > this recession (some think we are in a depression already) the UNRULY
> > the mobs will get, and they will be looking for those "LOAN SHARKS"
> > who helped ruined the economy!
>
> It certainly is a mess. Good thing you don't need to worry about it,
> as I'm sure mommy does your laundry and keeps your rent low in the
> basement apartment.
LOL!! Same old tired claims! Is this all you got Chuck? I hope you
have a house with a moat and steel-wired fencing, because you are
going to need it soon I'm sure.
> > Don't you love how a man who rips off people and banks has the gall to
> > call someone else a loser? Oh, the irony of it all!
>
> Put your double degree to work and figure out the 'curiousgeorge1'
> fiasco, Sherlock. Then Walt, Ben and Healy will give you back your JFK
> CT secret decoder ring again.
LOL!! Sure, I strive for acceptance from them. LOL!!
> PS. Move your futon bed and comic books out of mommy's basement
> apartment. I'm sending the Sheriff over to foreclose on her bungalow.
How many have you ripped off this month? I bet it is tougher to snow
folks these days, huh? I mean the lending cash has dried up. I wish
Obama would look into locking your folks up in jail who have stole
from banks and individuals. I would recommend the same kind of
justice you are happy to give to JFK too!
Hey, you can always join the "Skinheads" in jail, right?
aeffects
[...]
Unless you study the issue about how bullets were handled in
> 1963/1964 and compare this to the Kennedy case, you have nothing.
listen to the troll-wanker..... "how bullets were handled in
1963/1964..." ROTFLMFAO.... as if this nutter dipshit even knew what a
bullet was in 1963-64. Hey turd, did that FBI agent who allegedly
turned in 399, isn't he on the record saying what passes as the WCR
'magic bullet' doesn't quite resemble what he turned in?
Ya can put your pud back in your pocket, time to clone up another
theory.... GAWD you lone nut creepos are boring....
aeffects
son, ya can't pay me enough to type out the perfect paragraph. Just to
irritate you and sorry-assed, lone nut dip-shit, nonsensical cohorts
is payment enough for me concerning my toils here.... I can't write
and make probably 5 times as much as this putrid wretch of a feeble
minded Lone Nut-trollite who **thinks** he can write.... The troll
can't even drum up a writing gig after 15 of posting to these
boards.... and he needs his alter ego Reitzes-pieces to show up here
and drag his sorry ass out of obscurity...
A simple pathetic moron -- and worse yet (and, your biggest claim to
fame) the idiot lets Dale Myers walk away with credits and paycheck
from Vinnie daBug's Reclaiming History doorstop (which by the way, the
worst publishing disaster since Guttenberg's day.....
Carry on,hon! We love watching you dance.... selling old-time TV show
DVD's looking any better, these day's?
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "[Robert] Frazier [of the FBI] testfied that the bullet had no blood or tissue on it. How can this be if it was the real bullet? Also[,] there was no fabric threads on the bullet. Why was this?" <<<
>
> Nobody knows for certain if there was any blood or tissue or fabric on
> bullet CE399 when Darrell Tomlinson picked it up off of Connally's
> stretcher, because (per Bob Frazier's WC testimony) the bullet was
> never tested for blood or bodily tissue.
Why is that? Isn't it standard to test for this stuff when a bullet
was supposedly used in a murder of shooting? How can you claim a
bullet was the murder instrument IF you can't prove it was ever in the
body of the person killed?
Seems like you are OUT of luck here.
> Plus, we also know that the stretcher bullet was placed into the
> pockets of at least two of the men who initially handled it at
> Parkland Hospital (O.P. Wright and Secret Service agent Richard
> Johnsen). We can never know, therefore, how much bodily residue or
> fabric was wiped off of the bullet as a result of that type of shoddy
> handling.
Very true, BUT THE PART DAVE ALWAYS LIES ABOUT is this "shoddy
handling" HURTS the prosecution's case, NOT the DEFENSE'S case. Right
Dave? Due to this "shoddy handling" CE399 would have either NEVER
been allowed to be admitted in a trial (my guess) or it would have
quickly been debunked by the defense due to NO chain of custody.
> Via Bob Frazier's Warren Commission testimony:
>
> MEL EISENBERG -- "Did you prepare the bullet in any way for
> examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?"
>
> ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was
> clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way."
>
> EISENBERG -- "There was no blood or similar material on the bullet
> when you received it?"
>
> FRAZIER -- "Not any which would interfere with the examination, no,
> sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been
> removed just in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually
> clean blood or tissue off of the bullet."
Further PROOF to me it was NEVER inside ANYBODY!
robc...@netscape.com
> On Feb 25, 1:49 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
> <Rob's childish, tiresome baloney snipped.>
>
> Sorry, Rob.
Sorry Chuck, YOU NEED to prove CE399 was the bullet FOUND at PH first!
> You need to show how CE399 was handled differently than other bullets
> of the era.
IT was NOT tested for blood or tissue, this SURELY was different from
standard proceedures of the day!
> And you can't do that. You just spew unsupported, wacky, kook stuff.
I have Frazier testifying to the fact he DID NO TESTS ON CE399 OR THE
TWO FRAGMENTS! What else do I need?
> CE399 was fired from Oz's rifle--to the exclusion of any other weapon.
YOU have FAILED to prove CE139 WAS LHO's rifle, remember?
> Unless you think the bullet was <chuckle> *planted*, you've got
> nothing.
I don't need to argue it was planted as the chain of custody is NON-
EXISTENT FOR IT AND ALL THE WITNESSES WHO SAW SAID CE399 IS NOT THE
BULLET THEY SAW! Furthermore, the bullet found, NOT the one presented
as CE399 by the way, was sent directly to D.C. and this VIOLATED state
law as the murder was NOT a Federal Crime at that point!
All these things would have made CE399 worthless in court.
> Unless you study the issue about how bullets were handled in
> 1963/1964 and compare this to the Kennedy case, you have nothing.
Don't need to Chuck has YOUR expert admitted to doing NOTHING in the
way of tests, and surely in 1963 this was a ridiculous as it would be
today.
> Put up or shut up.
I don't have to UNTIL you prove CE399 was ACTUALLY the bullet that
entered JFK and JBC. Put up or shut up time Chuck, can you PROVE
this?
> Say 'hi' to curiousgeorge1 for me next time you see him rating your
> posts again.
I will, he said YOU ripped him off on his mortgage and he and his
friends are coming to get you!
robc...@netscape.com
> On Feb 26, 1:40 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 3:11 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 1:49 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
> > > <Rob's childish, tiresome baloney snipped.>
>
> > > Sorry, Rob.
>
> > Sorry Chuck, YOU NEED to prove CE399 was the bullet FOUND at PH first!
>
Quote me saying it was planted. I have said the bullet presented by
the WC is NOT the bullet found, everyone who saw it has said so. YOU
can draw your own conclusion on that.
> The WC
> and HSCA certainly looked at it. How am I going to convince you if
> their work didn't?
Because their work is faulty as the eyewitnesses who saw and TOUCHED
the bullet found at PH ALL said CE399 is NOT the bullet they saw or
touched. How am I going to convince you IF their words didn't?
> > > You need to show how CE399 was handled differently than other bullets
> > > of the era.
>
> > IT was NOT tested for blood or tissue, this SURELY was different from
> > standard proceedures of the day!
>
> I doubt it, but show us your research. Who have you talked to? What
> did you read? Otherwise, you're just spewing hysterical kook sh*t.
LOL!! Same old junk. YOU are representing the prosecution, thus the
test are incumbent on YOUR side doing them. This is how the justice
system works in America Chuck. All this stuff of present my experts is
moot as the defense doesn't have to UNTIL the prosecution does FIRST
and since your beloved WC failed to do normal testing proceedures you
are out of luck. Next.
> > > And you can't do that. You just spew unsupported, wacky, kook stuff.
>
> > I have Frazier testifying to the fact he DID NO TESTS ON CE399 OR THE
> > TWO FRAGMENTS! What else do I need?
>
> Um, he was testing them for their ballistic characteristics, dummy.
So blood on bullets that allegedly came out of victims is NOT part of
his job? LOL!! YOU show your ignorance with every post.
> That was his job. Among non-kooks, it's accepted fact that the bullet
> and two big fragments match Oswald's Carcano rifle.
All this is part of his job moron.
> > > CE399 was fired from Oz's rifle--to the exclusion of any other weapon.
>
> > YOU have FAILED to prove CE139 WAS LHO's rifle, remember?
NOTICE HE SKIPS THIS PART??
> > > Unless you think the bullet was <chuckle> *planted*, you've got
> > > nothing.
>
> > I don't need to argue it was planted as the chain of custody is NON-
> > EXISTENT FOR IT AND ALL THE WITNESSES WHO SAW SAID CE399 IS NOT THE
> > BULLET THEY SAW! Furthermore, the bullet found, NOT the one presented
> > as CE399 by the way, was sent directly to D.C. and this VIOLATED state
> > law as the murder was NOT a Federal Crime at that point!
>
> Earth to Rob: CE399 is an exclusive, ballistic match to Oswald's
> Carcano.
NO it is a ballistic match to the rifle found on the sixth floor of
the TSBD, you and the WC FAILED to prove this rifle was OWNED BY LHO!
Why do you lie so much?
> It doesn't matter what your kook interpretation of what
> witnesses say about finding it at Parkland, or whether it was "pointy-
> nosed" or whatever. Unless you can prove it was planted, and explain
> how the plotters would've known that planting CE399 wasn't the one
> bullet too many that blows the *conspiracy* wide open, you have
> nothing.
It will matter to a court of law loser! CE399 proves NOTHING!
> > All these things would have made CE399 worthless in court.
>
> > > Unless you study the issue about how bullets were handled in
> > > 1963/1964 and compare this to the Kennedy case, you have nothing.
>
> > Don't need to Chuck has YOUR expert admitted to doing NOTHING in the
> > way of tests, and surely in 1963 this was a ridiculous as it would be
> > today.
>
> Frazier was a firearms expert, dolt. I believe he examined the rifle,
> pistol, cartridges and bullets for the WC. Do you think he should've
> tested the rifle bullets/fragments for residual blood evidence?
Blood on bullets is quite commong moron, ESPECIALLY when they are in
people! Is Chuck dumb enough to say Fraizier had never seen a bullet
with blood on it before? LOL!
> > > Put up or shut up.
>
> > I don't have to UNTIL you prove CE399 was ACTUALLY the bullet that
> > entered JFK and JBC. Put up or shut up time Chuck, can you PROVE
> > this?
>
> How would that be proved to your satisfaction--a kook?
It would contain blood, tissue and clothing striations on it. It would
be the bullet seen by all those who found it and touched it at PH. It
would show way more deformity given it caused 7 wounds and hit three
bones!
> > > Say 'hi' to curiousgeorge1 for me next time you see him rating your
> > > posts again.
>
> > I will, he said YOU ripped him off on his mortgage and he and his
> > friends are coming to get you!
>
> Thanks for admitting curiousgeorge1 rates your posts. I have a hunch I
> won't have too much trouble fending off a couple of doofus friends of
> yours.
LOL!!! Let's see what he says when those mobs in his hometown get
together for some Texas justice!