The Warren Commission Sham

[Lance Payette]

They refused to identify it after seven months, or, given the fact that they'd failed to put their initials on it, were unable to identify it after seven months?

PS Take some deep breaths.

In through the nose, out through the mouth . . .

I still am unable to fathom - really, I am quite dull - the central issue as to why, if CE 399 were in any sense a "plant," our dumbass conspirators would have used a bullet that raises as many obvious red flags as CE 399 and not had the various participants get their stories straight. If what was found at Parkland was actually nothing, or a 30.06 slug that you needed to make disappear because it didn't match Oswald's rifle, why would you substitute a bullet like CE 399 and coach your witnesses to tell a consistent story? And where did it come from in the first place? Was it always ready, "just in case?" How and why?

I can certainly appreciate that there would be very significant chain-of-custody issues if CE 399 were offered into evidence in a criminal trial. But in a criminal trial, you merely need to object that the chain of custody is insufficient to make reasonably certain that CE 399 is in fact the bullet found at Parkland. You don't need any rationale. But if you're asserting a conspiracy out here in the Real World, you DO need a coherent rationale as to why sane conspirators would have done what you are alleging they did.

CTers seem to miss this critical distinction. Out here in the Real World, you can't get by just by playing Oswald Defense Counsel and raising legal objections. The theory you are promoting has to make sense, or at least not blatantly Not Make Sense.

[Tom Graves]

Well done Tom, that's right, they did refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day.
Not one or two of them...ALL FOUR MEN refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day.
All four, Tom.
They were unable to identify it because it was a different bullet.
Rowley and Johnsen didn't put their initials on CE399 because they handled a different bullet that day.
Wright categorically denied that CE399 was the bullet he handled that day.
He received a pointed "hunting slug" from Tomlinson and he gave that bullet to Johnsen.
The WC Sham knew not to question any of these men about CE399, so they didn't.
Even Darrell Tomlinson - the man who discovered the bullet in Parkland - was not asked to identify the bullet when he gave testimony. Let that sink in, Tom.
In fact, he wasn't asked a single question about the bullet itself - the man who discovered this absolutely key piece of evidence for the Sham's fantasy.
Don't forget that CE399 was held up as the key to the Single Bullet Theory. It is one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case as far as the WC's story is concerned.
Yet this fundamental piece of evidence was entered into evidence without a single person identifying it as the bullet that was found in Parkland.
How was that possible Tom?
Why wasn't this questioned by the Sham.

Now that it has been established that CE399 was NOT the bullet found in Parkland, here is a question for the Nutters to answer - where did CE399 come from?
And the answer has nothing to do with missing initials.

O'meara,

You're willfully conflating someone's refusing to identify something they'd seen seven months earlier with his or her being unable to remember what they'd seen seven months earlier.

[Dan O'meara]

O'meara,

You're willfully conflating someone's refusing to identify something they'd seen seven months earlier with his or her being unable to remember what they'd seen seven months earlier.

And you are desperately avoiding all the evidence proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, that CE399 was not the bullet found in Parkland.
Doesn't it bother you that you can't point to a single piece of evidence supporting your "theory" that CE399 was the bullet found in Parkland.
You seem like an intelligent guy. How can you turn a blind eye to this issue? Aren't you genuinely interested in what happened?
Doesn't it bother you that the WC entered CE399 into evidence without a single person identifying it as such?
Doesn't it bother you that none of these men were asked by the WC to identify it?

Nutters like to go on about CTers being in denial or turning a blind eye to damning evidence.
Who's in denial now?

[John Iacoletti]

Payette asked: "What is the CT explanation for the conspirators' planting a suspiciously non-deformed bullet (CE-399), fired from Oswald's rifle, at Parkland on a stretcher of unknown provenance?"

O'meara's responded: "This shows an extreme level of ignorance regarding this issue."

My comment: Your "response," O'meara, screams that you can't answer the question.

Which is totally understandable given the fact that CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC and therefore wasn't planted by one of your oodles and gobs of bad guys and . . . gasp . . . very, very bad gals.

And what is your evidence that CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC?

[John Iacoletti]

No, not at all. Each item of evidence must be considered separately. If CTers wish to assert that CE 399 was fabricated, planted, etc., we must ask how fabricating and planting it makes any sense in the context of a conspiracy. The notion of fabricating CE 399 and then claiming that it was found at Parkland on a stretcher that we're not even sure was Connally's and then was so badly handled that there are chain-of-custody issues - what possible sense does that make? It's so silly that it does indeed argue in favor of authenticity.

So if the evidence is ridiculous then it's genuine.  If it's not ridiculous then it's also genuine.  No matter what, it's genuine.

What's silly is the assertion that CE399 was related to the assassination based solely on it having been fired from the rifle that LNers want to be the murder weapon.

[John Iacoletti]

I still am unable to fathom - really, I am quite dull - the central issue as to why, if CE 399 were in any sense a "plant," our dumbass conspirators would have used a bullet that raises as many obvious red flags as CE 399 and not had the various participants get their stories straight. If what was found at Parkland was actually nothing, or a 30.06 slug that you needed to make disappear because it didn't match Oswald's rifle, why would you substitute a bullet like CE 399 and coach your witnesses to tell a consistent story?

WHAT consistent story?

And where did it come from in the first place? Was it always ready, "just in case?" How and why?

For all the imagining you do, you seem to have run into a creative block.  If CE399 was not ever actually in Dealey Plaza or at Parkland, it could have been fired from CE139 at any time prior to Robert Frazier receiving it.  Including after the assassination.

CTers seem to miss this critical distinction. Out here in the Real World, you can't get by just by playing Oswald Defense Counsel and raising legal objections. The theory you are promoting has to make sense, or at least not blatantly Not Make Sense.

Doesn't the same go for the people playing prosecuting counsel?

[John Mytton]

For all the imagining you do, you seem to have run into a creative block.  If CE399 was not ever actually in Dealey Plaza or at Parkland, it could have been fired from CE139 at any time prior to Robert Frazier receiving it.  Including after the assassination.

Cool story Bro! 

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Cool story Bro! 

The difference is, I admit when I am imagining things and don't try to present them as facts.

Like you do, bro!

Lance was calling for speculation, which you would know if you ever actually read these conversations before chiming in with your canned nonsense.