Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Martin Weidmann]

So not only did Todd lie, but also Robert Frazier and others at the FBI lab. And they lied and put themselves in a position where they would stand to lose their job and be charged criminally for what reason? Because they knew that the real bullet didn't match Oswald's MC? Why would they want to frame Oswald if his gun had not fired at the limo? It makes absolutely no sense.  It is no wonder there is absolutely no evidence to support such fanciful idea.

So not only did Todd lie, but also Robert Frazier and others at the FBI lab.

Where do you get the idea from that it would have taken more than one person to switch a bullet? All Frazier (and others at the lab) knew is what Todd told them about receiving the bullet from Rowley.

And they lied and put themselves in a position where they would stand to lose their job and be charged criminally for what reason?

Unless of course, if Hoover wanted it done and they were simply toeing the line. A bit like Hosty destroying the note from Oswald on Shanklin's instructions.

Because they knew that the real bullet didn't match Oswald's MC?

Physical evidence in the Kennedy murder is extremely scanty. Hoover actually said so to LBJ. So, they get this unrelated bullet from Parkland and it doesn't match the MC rifle. They have two options; (1) they tell Hoover there's no match, putting the case against Oswald (who Hoover had already named as the sole assassin) in complete jeopardy or (2) they just fire a bullet from the MC and nobody is the wiser and/or can prove otherwise.

Why would they want to frame Oswald if his gun had not fired at the limo? 

Possibly for the same reason LBJ formed the WC.

It makes absolutely no sense.

Anything to do with possible malpractice by law enforcement officals seems not to make sense to you

It is no wonder there is absolutely no evidence to support such fanciful idea.

Oh but there is... a circumstantial case can easily be made. You just would not want to accept it.

[Walt Cakebread]

6. the above leaves two possibilities: a) CE399 was planted by a conspirator b) CE399 was one of three bullets fired at the time of the assassination.

Or, alternatively, CE399 was (just like the Walker bullet) part of an FBI scheme to wrap a very weak case around Oswald very quickly?

I'll accept "C"....With one small correction.....   CE399 was (just like the Walker bullet) part of an FBI Hoover scheme to wrap a very weak case around Oswald very quickly?

[Andrew Mason]

I do not understand why at this point it is so difficult to accept this.

Of course you don't.  You think you can get the truth by rejecting evidence because it could leave doubt and reaching conclusions based on the possibility of contrary evidence existing but which has not been discovered.

[John Iacoletti]

2. a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson on the afternoon of 22/11/63 and passed along to Todd who put his initials on it.

The bullet that Tomlinson found was on an unrelated stretcher and had a pointed tip.

[Jerry Freeman]

You think you can get the truth by rejecting evidence because it could leave doubt and reaching conclusions based on the possibility of contrary evidence existing but which has not been discovered.

Not that I am one...but that is what criminal defense lawyers do. It's called an Appeal.

[Andrew Mason]

Not that I am one...but that is what criminal defense lawyers do. It's called an Appeal.

It is a well established principle of law that when weighing the evidence the fact finder must not subject each piece of evidence to the standard of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). The trier of fact must apply that standard of proof to the whole of the evidence. Defence counsel do not want judges rejecting evidence by subjecting each piece of evidence to the "reasonable doubt" standard.  That is a sure way for the prosecutor to set aside an acquittal on appeal.

[John Iacoletti]

It is a well established principle of law that when weighing the evidence the fact finder must not subject each piece of evidence to the standard of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). The trier of fact must apply that standard of proof to the whole of the evidence. Defence counsel do not want judges rejecting evidence by subjecting each piece of evidence to the "reasonable doubt" standard.  That is a sure way for the prosecutor to set aside an acquittal on appeal.

How is this a "well established principle of law"?

If each piece of evidence individually doesn't meet a reasonable doubt standard, then how could they possibly meet it when combined?

[Bill Chapman]

How is this a "well established principle of law"?

If each piece of evidence individually doesn't meet a reasonable doubt standard, then how could they possibly meet it when combined?

Seems you find putting the pieces (of evidence) together somewhat frightening