What's reasonable about you again implying without a shred of evidence that yet more evidence was illegally planted?
JohnM
Other than in your paranoid mind, how am I implying any such thing?
Do you disagree, John, that evidence has to be authenticated and without provenance issue before it can be considered valid?
Or are you just trying to shift the burden of proof again?
No, analysing the evidence and drawing a reasonable conclusion will never be just a "wild-ass" guess.
We have two large fragments found in the Limo and we have the results of two objects impacting the interior of the Limo, do the math!
JohnM
Except for the fact that you can not demonstrate with any kind of certainty that the two fragments were indeed found in the limo, you might have a point.
As it stands, your conclusion is anything but reasonable and indeed just a wild guess.
We have an experts opinion on one hand and on the other you have,....nothing.
Try again!
JohnM
We have an experts opinion on one handYeah right.....
Mr. EISENBERG - But in your opinion the marks on the left are the same as the marks on the right?
Mr. FRAZIER - The marks on the left are the same marks as those on the right. In the examination this is easily determined by rotating the two bullets. As you rotate them, you can see these characteristic patterns line up.
Then you will notice these do not line up. But as you rotate one bullet, you can follow the individual marks mentally and see that the same pattern is present and you can line them up in your mind , even though they are not actually physically lined up in the microscope.
Mr. McCLOY - They are not lined up in the microscope because there is mutilation on the fragment?
Mr. EISENBERG - Yes, sir.