RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Martin Weidmann]

Every piece of ballistic evidence, other than the tiniest bullet fragments, were compromised in some way.
Fritz was seen picking up the three hulls on the sixth floor before they were processed by the Crime Lab.
He then pocketed the ejected round without it being processed [regardless of what Day said]
The two fragments found on the back seat were discovered, not as part of an official crime scene search, but handed to Orin Bartlett by two unnamed Secret Service agents.
As already pointed out - the pointed "hunting slug" found by Tomlinson morphed into CE399 and the bullet that came off Connally's stretcher in the operating room morphed into four small fragments taken from his wrist.

And let's not forget that General Walker, during the HSCA enquiry, saw the bullet allegedly taken from his house, and instantly denied it was the correct bullet and claim there had been a switch.

For a straight forward murder case, as the LNs like to claim this is, this is all just a little bit too much. As if somebody was making the "evidence" fit the desired outcome.

[Martin Weidmann]

It looks like VP is licking his wounds.

[Alan Ford]

And let's not forget that General Walker, during the HSCA enquiry, saw the bullet allegedly taken from his house, and instantly denied it was the correct bullet and claim there had been a switch.

For a straight forward murder case, as the LNs like to claim this is, this is all just a little bit too much. As if somebody was making the "evidence" fit the desired outcome.

Thankfully, though, there are no such issues with the ballistic evidence on the Tippit side of the case.

1:41 p.m.: “the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol”

[John Iacoletti]

For a straight forward murder case, as the LNs like to claim this is, this is all just a little bit too much. As if somebody was making the "evidence" fit the desired outcome.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

[David Von Pein]

Re: Lieutenant J.C. Day and the Pinkston memo.....

It's clear to me that the Pinkston memo (seen below) is referring to the PALMPRINT that was discovered by Lt. Day on the rifle.

Why do I say that?

Because the memo three different times specifically says "PRINT" (singular) and not "prints" (plural).

If the memo was referring to the trigger guard prints, it would very likely say "prints" (plural), or at least it should, because we know that Lt. Day saw two prints on the trigger guard (and he testified to that fact).

[Jon Banks]

Yes, I would.

I'd like to think I'm honest enough to do that. And I would have also included in my report the REASON for why I moved the piece of evidence in the first place.

David, for evidence to be admissible in court, a chain of custody must be established.

If you, as a law enforcement officer, did anything that may raise doubt about the origin of the evidence and the chain of custody, you could harm the prosecution’s case.

So the best course of action for the government’s investigation would be to not mention it in any formal or written reports.

It displays a level of naïveté to expect that everyone or most people will be honest regardless of the circumstances or the context…

[Martin Weidmann]

Re: Lieutenant J.C. Day and the Pinkston memo.....

It's clear to me that the Pinkston memo (seen below) is referring to the PALMPRINT that was discovered by Lt. Day on the rifle.

Why do I say that?

Because the memo three different times specifically says "PRINT" (singular) and not "prints" (plural).

If the memo was referring to the trigger guard prints, it would very likely say "prints" (plural), or at least it should, because we know that Lt. Day saw two prints on the trigger guard (and he testified to that fact).

It's clear to me that the Pinkston memo (seen below) is referring to the PALMPRINT that was discovered by Lt. Day on the rifle.

Wishful thinking! Your opinion isn't evidence.

Besides, one can argue that it can't be the palmprint because the memo claims Day did not lift it, when Day himself is saying that he did lift it.

[David Von Pein]

...one can argue that it can't be the palmprint because the memo claims Day did not lift it, when Day himself is saying that he did lift it.

Maybe Pinkston talked to Lt. Day at a time on Nov. 22 which was before Day had time to perform the lift.

Is that not even remotely possible in your world? Or am I merely showing my "desperation" yet again?