The Limo Bullet Fragments....

[Walt Cakebread]

Walt, I'm not sure you're capable of being enlightened.

If you want to insist that the two large fragments found in the limo were merely slivers because that's what Hoover said on 11/23/63, go right ahead.

I understand how devastating the fragment evidence is to Saint Oz's defense team, and can't blame you for trying to deny it's existence.

I understand how devastating the fragment evidence is

In a telephone conversation with LBJ on 11/23/63 J.Edgar Hoover told LBJ..."We have (fragments) what we call slivers, which are not very valuable in the identification."

It seems to me that J. Edgar's statement to LBJ is far more devastating to  your contention ....  J. Edgar Hoover clearly told Lyin Bastroid Johnson that the fragments were NOT very valuable for identification purposes.....

[John Iacoletti]

Theory 1: A bullet fragmented into three. One fragment struck the windshield and cracked it and bounced back into the limousine. This fragment was found in the limousine. A second fragment from the same bullet dented the windshield frame and bounced back into the limousine. This fragment was also found in the limousine. While both the found fragments only account for 60% of the mass of a bullet, a third fragment must have just cleared the windshield and sun visors and wounded Mr. Tague.

Unfortunately, Tague said there was another shot after he was hit.

While one bullet might fragment, causing one or more fragments to just hit the limousine, and one or more fragments to just clear the limousine, this is unlikely to occur twice, which Theory 2 requires.

Why is this "unlikely to occur twice"?

Also, we have reason to believe only one bullet would fragment. We only have one wound that would cause such a bullet to fragment, JFK?s head wound.

How do you know there was only one head wound?

[John Iacoletti]

These ?other guys? were Secret Service agents.

Really?  I think it would have been news to hospital corpsman Mills that he was a Secret Service agent.

But was crime scene evidence collection even within the purview of the Secret Service?

Reasonable people have theories. Unreasonable people have established truths in their heads that they cannot seriously question.

You mean like the idea that Oswald did it?

[John Iacoletti]

It was, of course, impossible to determine that the two fragments came from the same bullet or from two different bullets. But two different bullets each leaving a fragment that stays in the limousine, while the other fragment leaves the limousine, is patently unlikely for the following reasons.

How exactly do you know that any part of any head shot bullet "left the limousine"?

[John Iacoletti]

It should be noted that regardless of whether the fragments came from one bullet or two, they are devastating evidence against LHO.

Patently absurd.  A fragment tells you nothing about who fired it.

"Ballistic experts Robert Frazier and Joseph Nicol examined the stretcher bullet and the two fragments recovered from the limousine and determined that they were fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world." 

Yes, I know, because Frazier lined up the markings in his mind when they wouldn't line up under the microscope.  But great.  Now all you have to do is show that bullet found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital and the two fragments allegedly recovered from the limousine were actually involved in the assassination.

That is unless someone stole Saint Oz's rifle from the garage and used it to assassinate JFK.

Says the guy who can't even demonstrate that this rifle was ever in the garage.

[John Iacoletti]

Why would all of it need to be faked?

Classic LN strawman to divert from the reality that their "evidence", authentic or not, doesn't actually show that Oswald did it.

Wow, you have the evidence to support that claim of C2766 being in that garage?

No, of course he doesn't.

[John Iacoletti]

Then cite your evidence. Why all the verbiage?

Verbiage is what they do when they don't actually have the solid evidence.  Hence Bugliosi's 1648 pages.  "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t".

[Howard Gee]

Patently absurd.  A fragment tells you nothing about who fired it.

Yes, I know, because Frazier lined up the markings in his mind when they wouldn't line up under the microscope.  But great.  Now all you have to do is show that bullet found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital and the two fragments allegedly recovered from the limousine were actually involved in the assassination.

Says the guy who can't even demonstrate that this rifle was ever in the garage.

The fragments don't tell us who fired the gun but they do tell us what gun they were fired from. In this case C2766, which was ordered, paid for and possessed by Saint Oz.

Of course it's possible that the fragments weren't 'involved in the assassination' but only if you believe that fragments from a bullet fired by Saint Oz's C2766 were somehow in the limo prior to the assassination or planted there afterwards.

It's also possible that the rifle Marina photographed Saint Oz posing with and the rifle she saw blanketed in the garage wasn't C2766.

Of course, something being possible doesn't mean it's likely or even a reasonable consideration.

The fragments are very conclusive proof.

LHO: GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT