Did Poe Mark The Shells?

[Walt Cakebread]

The fact is.... Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene.  It is one thing to As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day?  It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair.  His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate.  Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare.  There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and moan about what you believe to be a lack of validity of the evidence; any kook can do that.  It is another thing entirely to actually do something about it by proving that the shells are not authentic.

Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene.

Huh??....Are you living in Iran?.....  It's the prosecutions responsibility to demonstrate that theses shells are in fact the same shells that were allegedly found at the scene....  And I say allegedly because I believe only ONE of the shells was picked up while the police were there on the scene .

[Martin Weidmann]

Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene.

Huh??....Are you living in Iran?.....  It's the prosecutions responsibility to demonstrate that theses shells are in fact the same shells that were allegedly found at the scene....  And I say allegedly because I believe only ONE of the shells was picked up while the police were there on the scene .

It's the prosecutions responsibility to demonstrate that theses shells are in fact the same shells that were allegedly found at the scene....

Exactly right, Walt and in this case this goes for the LNs as well, as they are the one making the claim. But instead of proving their case, they try shift the burden of proof around to a "unless you prove me wrong, I am automatically right" scenario. It's truly pathetic and weak.

[Tim Nickerson]

The fact is.... Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene.  It is one thing to As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day?  It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair.  His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate.  Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare.  There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and moan about what you believe to be a lack of validity of the evidence; any kook can do that.  It is another thing entirely to actually do something about it by proving that the shells are not authentic.

That isn't how it works though. But the fact is that the shells in evidence are the shells that were collected at the scene. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Those who refuse to accept that fact are simply not reasonable people and it's pointless to try to reason with them.

[Martin Weidmann]

That isn't how it works though. But the fact is that the shells in evidence are the shells that were collected at the scene. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Those who refuse to accept that fact are simply not reasonable people and it's pointless to try to reason with them.

But the fact is that the shells in evidence are the shells that were collected at the scene. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.

When you claim it with so much certainty, I am beginning to think that I might have missed something. Please explain how it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the shells now in evidence are the same ones that were collected at the scene.

Those who refuse to accept that fact are simply not reasonable people and it's pointless to try to reason with them.

Calling somebody unreasonable simply because he does not agree with your opinion is what's really unreasonable. I mean, c'mon, isn't this kind of whining just tantamount to admitting that your arguments are simply not convincing enough? You wouldn't be one of those people who think they are always right, would you? Perhaps you should try to accept that your arguments simply might not always be as conclusive or persuasive as you think they are.

[Rob Caprio]

The fact is.... Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene.  It is one thing to As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day?  It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair.  His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate.  Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare.  There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and moan about what you believe to be a lack of validity of the evidence; any kook can do that.  It is another thing entirely to actually do something about it by proving that the shells are not authentic.

I have shown it and the LNers complained until it was removed. The point of course is the burden is on the LNers to suport the claim that they are the same shells. Well?

[Walt Cakebread]

I have shown it and the LNers complained until it was removed. The point of course is the burden is on the LNers to suport the claim that they are the same shells. Well?

Can you show that the shells are not the same shells without posting a huge and rambling post ?...  I can see that there is no unbroken chain from Poe to the DA. and that's a fact....

[Bill Brown]

That isn't how it works though. But the fact is that the shells in evidence are the shells that were collected at the scene. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Those who refuse to accept that fact are simply not reasonable people and it's pointless to try to reason with them.

That's exactly right.  The case has been very clearly laid out as to how the shells are authentic, a point that these two clowns fail to grasp.  Both Dhority and Doughty would testify that the shells in evidence are the shells turned over to them by each of the Davis sisters.  Now it is up to the kooks to prove Dhority and Doughty wrong.

[Tim Nickerson]

That's exactly right.  The case has been very clearly laid out as to how the shells are authentic, a point that these two clowns fail to grasp.  Both Dhority and Doughty would testify that the shells in evidence are the shells turned over to them by each of the Davis sisters.  Now it is up to the kooks to prove Dhority and Doughty wrong.

It's 55 years out. Dhority and Doughty are both deceased. We don't have documents signed by those two officials in which they confirm their identification of the shells. They may exist somewhere. Who knows? But it would make no difference to some CTs if they did exist. How could we be sure that those really were their signatures? "Handwriting 'analysis' is biased and unscientific". Don't you know?