RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Michael Welch]

Hi Everybody, This bullet seems to be the original bullet that everybody saw at Parkland that morphed [was replaced by] into the Carcano bullet entered into evidence. I cannot think of anybody who handled the Carcano bullet at Parkland who was willing to sign off on it later as being the same bullet that they saw. Please correct me if I am wrong. Sincerely yours, Michael

[Royell Storing]

Hi Everybody, This bullet seems to be the original bullet that everybody saw at Parkland that morphed [was replaced by] into the Carcano bullet entered into evidence. I cannot think of anybody who handled the Carcano bullet at Parkland who was willing to sign off on it later as being the same bullet that they saw. Please correct me if I am wrong. Sincerely yours, Michael

   The "chain of custody" with respect to this Pristine Bullet would never hold up in court. No Carcano bullet takes the alleged journey that this one did and emerges in this condition. No getting around it, even though they tried and tried.

[Martin Weidmann]

They were all in on it?  This from the joker who claims over and over that he is not alleging a conspiracy or that the evidence was fabricated.  But he constantly implies that there was a conspiracy, and the evidence was fabricated.  You have to pick one narrative or the other.  You can't eat your cake and have it too as the Unabomber noted.

This from the joker who claims over and over that he is not alleging a conspiracy or that the evidence was fabricated.

I am not alleging or implying anything. Instead, and unlike you, I have an open mind about all possible scenarios. Questioning the authenticity of the evidence and pointing out the sheer incompetence of law enforcement in handling the evidence isn't the same as alleging a conspirary. Well, at least it isn't in the mind of sane people.


You have to pick one narrative or the other.

No I don't

[John Iacoletti]

Royell is back too? It’s like old home week!

[Steve M. Galbraith]

   The "chain of custody" with respect to this Pristine Bullet would never hold up in court. No Carcano bullet takes the alleged journey that this one did and emerges in this condition. No getting around it, even though they tried and tried.

Why would it not be in the condition it was? As to the court standard. Why is that standard used when we discuss this event? No one discusses any other historic event, no one tries to reconstruct what happened and tosses out information because some legal standard required it. It's bizarre that people argue this way.

[John Iacoletti]

It’s not just a “legal standard”. Evidence that cannot be authenticated for whatever reason is unreliable for basing conclusions on.

[Michael Walton]

As absurd as the single bullet theory is, for this guy to not come forward for 60 years strains credulity about his story.

Yes, very well said. I highly doubt this story and I think this guy is simply trying to drum up business to buy his book. I mean, really? Sixty years on and we only now hear about this?

For goodness sake - people will say and do anything to try to make a buck off of this case.

And this should tell you a lot about the Vanity Fair article:

After much prodding and reflection, Landis, now 88, made the decision to begin laying out his recollections for publication. Because I have written three books on presidential history, and because Landis’s publisher, Chicago Review Press, happens to be my publisher, an editor there asked me to read a copy of the galley and offer my comments, which I did quite eagerly.

As well as this:

All products featured on Vanity Fair are independently selected by our editors. However, when you buy something through our retail links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

It's all a money grab. Jeez.

[Jon Banks]

As absurd as the single bullet theory is, for this guy to not come forward for 60 years strains credulity about his story.

Yes, very well said. I highly doubt this story and I think this guy is simply trying to drum up business to buy his book. I mean, really? Sixty years on and we only now hear about this?

For goodness sake - people will say and do anything to try to make a buck off of this case.

And this should tell you a lot about the Vanity Fair article:

After much prodding and reflection, Landis, now 88, made the decision to begin laying out his recollections for publication. Because I have written three books on presidential history, and because Landis’s publisher, Chicago Review Press, happens to be my publisher, an editor there asked me to read a copy of the galley and offer my comments, which I did quite eagerly.

As well as this:

All products featured on Vanity Fair are independently selected by our editors. However, when you buy something through our retail links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

It's all a money grab. Jeez.

Your cynicism is understandable but we can just as easily ask “why did he wait so long to cash in on his experiences?” if we are assuming that he’s just trying to make a quick buck.

Landis is 88 years old now. He could’ve wrote a book decades ago and had more time to enjoy his earnings if he didn’t wait 60 years.

So I’m more inclined to believe he’s coming clean because he’s near the end of his life. Which isn’t unusual for people who keep secrets after experiencing a traumatic event. When he says he experienced PTSD after the Kennedy assassination, I believe him. Can’t imagine how I’d feel after seeing someone’s brains blown out in front of me…