[Ben Holmes]

(03-31-2017, 03:41 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-31-2017, 03:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  (39) The bullets recovered from Tippit's body were consistent with being fired from Oswald's .38.

This is simply another way of saying: "We couldn't honestly state that we found any matches". This is one of the biggest stretches the Warren Commission made - they knew they had a fairly weak case against Oswald, so by framing him with the Tippit killing, they believed that they could influence people to believe the killings were somehow related.

But it really makes no sense at all.

The Warren Commission even went to the trouble of 'expert witness shopping' - since their FBI ballistic experts declined to match any Tippit bullets to the alleged Oswald pistol. They found Joseph Nicol willing to match one of the bullets... however, as Dale Myers (no friend of critics) has written:
 

Dale Myers Wrote:One ballistic expert, Joseph D. Nicol, did find "sufficient individual characteristics" on one of the four bullets to reach the conclusion that it had been fired from Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons. However, none of the eight ballistic experts who have examined the bullets agree with Nicol's positive identification.

You won't find Vincent Bugliosi telling you this...

Notice the ommission Ben is guilty of:  The difficulty in matching the bullets to Oswald's revolver arose from the barrel being rechambered before being sold and the revolver was not REBARELLED to handle a .38 bullet from the cartridge. Since a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson Special bullet has a slightly smaller diameter than a regular .38 S&W bullet, the bullets were slightly undersized for the barrel, causing an erratic passage down the barrel, thereby causing "inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be impressed or scratched on to the surface of the bullets" Each time it was fired, the bullet would pass down the barrel in a different way.

This is meaningless.

It's an explanation why they COULDN'T match the bullets... but this means that the bullets wouldn't match to my pistol either. Or John's pistol down the street... or my Uncle Ralph's pistol... or...

I can go on and on...

Explaining why bullets don't match ONE pistol has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it could be matched to another pistol.

The issue is THAT THE BULLETS DIDN'T MATCH - you cannot use that fact to be evidence supporting your theory that Oswald shot Tippit.

Yet Bugliosi did. And that's simply wrong.
 

(03-31-2017, 03:41 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Not mentioned by Mr Holmes was the cartridge cases being positively identified as coming from the revolver Oswald was arrested with. The FBI expert found IDENTICAL breech face and firing pin marks on the head of the cases, concluding that the four shells found at the Tippit murder scene had been fired from Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.

I'm quite sure that the current shells at NARA came from the pistol.

I quite doubt that the ORIGINAL shells did. The original shells were automatic, as described on scene.

This explains why chain of custody is so important in American justice - and these shells had a broken chain of custody.

 

(03-31-2017, 03:41 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Multiple witnesess saw Oswald emptying these shells near some bushes or running from the scene.

You are, of course, merely claiming what you need to prove.

You merely assume that it was Oswald, therefore it must have been Oswald.

Then you simply run away from the ACTUAL facts & evidence that contradict your faith.
 

(03-31-2017, 03:41 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Isn't it fascinating how conspiracy theorists cherry pick what they state and conveniently leave out these little tidbits of information? - they learned from the master prevaricator himself, Mark Lane.

Interestingly, each time Mark Lane comes up - believers make completely unsubstantiated claims.

You've labeled him a liar... now, can you quote (along with a cite to the page number ) from "Rush To Judgment" one of these alleged lies ... then cite the relevant evidence that shows it to be a lie?

My prediction (based on extensive past history) - you'll refuse to do so.

And THAT fact tells the true story...