Four Shell Casings & A Damning Breech Facing

[Bill Brown]

When fired, the revolver puts a distinct marking (a "fingerprint") on the shell.

The shell casing is up against the breech face and the firing pin.  The bullet is fired when the hammer makes contact with the primer.  When this happens, the shell is thrown back against the breech face.  This action is what places the "fingerprint" onto the base of the shell casing (marks which match the breech face to the shell casing).  The marks on the breech face matching the marks on the shell casing is what is what proves that the shell casing was fired from that specific weapon, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.

Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation for the State of Illinois)
Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier, Charles Killion (all three of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.)

These four experts each examined the shell casings found at the scene at Tenth and Patton as well as Oswald's revolver (taken from him upon his apprehension at the theater).  Using this manner of ballistic testing, these investigators, independent of each other, determined that the shells were linked to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.

[Bill Chapman]

When fired, the revolver puts a distinct marking (a "fingerprint") on the shell.

The shell casing is up against the breech face and the firing pin.  The bullet is fired when the hammer makes contact with the primer.  When this happens, the shell is thrown back against the breech face.  This action is what places the "fingerprint" onto the base of the shell casing (marks which match the breech face to the shell casing).  The marks on the breech face matching the marks on the shell casing is what is what proves that the shell casing was fired from that specific weapon, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.

Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation for the State of Illinois)
Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier, Charles Killion (all three of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.)

These four experts each examined the shell casings found at the scene at Tenth and Patton as well as Oswald's revolver (taken from him upon his apprehension at the theater).  Using this manner of ballistic testing, these investigators, independent of each other, determined that the shells were linked to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.

billchapman/hunter of trolls

The Bill Brown Tour: The Killing of Tippit
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2785.msg103254.html#msg103254

[John Iacoletti]

Unfortunately, none of these experts (or anybody else) can demonstrate that the shell casings they examined were actually "found at the scene at Tenth and Patton" or that the revolver they matched them to was "taken from [Oswald] upon his apprehension at the theater".  Or even that these shell casings had anything to do with Tippit whatsoever.

[Bill Chapman]

Unfortunately, none of these experts (or anybody else) can demonstrate that the shell casings they examined were actually "found at the scene at Tenth and Patton" or that the revolver they matched them to was "taken from [Oswald] upon his apprehension at the theater".  Or even that these shell casings had anything to do with Tippit whatsoever.

Neither gun nor shells needed to convict

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Neither gun nor shells needed to convict

It's a new year but the same old defense of Oswald.

1. Dismiss the evidence based on a claim of a broken chain of custody of said evidence.
2. Then refuse to give an alternate explanation for the existence of that evidence.
3. Follow that up by giving the most innocent and innocuous explanation for the actions and behavior of the suspect. As in: "Lots of men leave behind their wedding rings and money when they're splitting up..." (except Marina said they weren't splitting up).
4. Finally, give the most sinister explanation for the claims of witnesses.

It's an intellectually lazy way of discussing an event. Unless you're acting as a sort of defense attorney for that suspect.

But here we are more than half a century later.

[John Iacoletti]

It's a new year but the same old defense of Oswald.

1. Dismiss the evidence based on a claim of a broken chain of custody of said evidence.

You can either authenticate the evidence or you cannot.

2. Then refuse to give an alternate explanation for the existence of that evidence.

Shifting the burden.  Your explanation doesn't automatically just win in the absence of an alternative.

3. Follow that up by giving the most innocent and innocuous explanation for the actions and behavior of the suspect. As in: "Lots of men leave behind their wedding rings and money when they're splitting up..." (except Marina said they weren't splitting up).

Something that isn't evidence of murder isn't evidence of murder.  One made-up "explanation" is as good as any other.  And when did Marina say they weren't splitting up?  And why would she necessarily know anyway?

4. Finally, give the most sinister explanation for the claims of witnesses.

Such as?

It's an intellectually lazy way of discussing an event. Unless you're acting as a sort of defense attorney for that suspect.

What's lazy is parroting all the same misinformation and excuses that have been trotted out since the Warren Commission more than half a century later.  Unless you're acting as a sort of prosecuting attorney.

[Martin Weidmann]

You can either authenticate the evidence or you cannot.

Shifting the burden.  Your explanation doesn't automatically just win in the absence of an alternative.

Something that isn't evidence of murder isn't evidence of murder.  One made-up "explanation" is as good as any other.  And when did Marina say they weren't splitting up?  And why would she necessarily know anyway?

Such as?

What's lazy is parroting all the same misinformation and excuses that have been trotted out since the Warren Commission more than half a century later.  Unless you're acting as a sort of prosecuting attorney.

Unless you're acting as a sort of prosecuting attorney.

He, like all LNs, is doing exactly that. And then they complain that anybody who isn't convinced by their 'evidence' is acting like a defense attorney. It's pathetic