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.
"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."Lance seems to be unaware that Nutters need a coherent rationale to explain why Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley all refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day.
Or why the WC refused to ask any of these men to identify CE399, even when the man who actually found the bullet was giving testimony.
Nutters have to offer a coherent rationale as to how CE399 could be entered into evidence by the WC Sham without a single person identifying it as such.
They have to offer a coherent rationale to explain why O P Wright categorically denied that CE399 was the bullet he received from Tomlinson or gave to Johnsen.
And their coherent rationale has to take in all these issues as a whole rather than trying to divide them up and offer piss-poor individual explanations.
Rather than deal with these insurmountable issues, the "coherent rationale" for Nutters like Lance is to cry "you have to explain the conspiracy first".
That is what Lance believes is a coherent rationale.
