(PART 88)


>>> "NO, he [Robert A. Frazier of the FBI] says later they were "similar" (the fragments) in composition to the CE399 bullet found." <<<


LOL. Well, of course they were "similar", you idiot....that's because
the fragments in question (CE567 and 569) and Bullet 399 positively
and without a shred of a doubt were fired from the SAME RIFLE.

Care to beat this very deceased equine any further, Mr. Idiot?

>>> "The CE399 is where he goes out on the limb and says it is a "match" to the alleged rifle." <<<

Yeah, I guess you do care to beat it some more.

>>> "So what is my main question?" <<<

Could be anything (as long as it doesn't lead to anything that's
actually in evidence). Right?

>>> "It [CE399] was found under very odd circumstances to begin
with." <<<

The circumstances might be a tad "odd", yes. But given that "Sum
Total" of evidence that CT-Kooks love to totally ignore, the journey
that Bullet 399 took is very reasonable. [MORE HERE.]

>>> "It [CE399] had no blood or tissue on it..." <<<

So what? It went through many different people's pockets before being examined for any traces of blood or tissue. Plus.....

"One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have any blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that must have been on it were removed by someone early on at the Dallas crime lab [sic] or elsewhere almost as a matter of course. In all the evidence bullets I handled in court in murder cases during my prosecutorial career, none had any visible blood on them. ....

"Interestingly, [Robert] Frazier testified that with respect to the two main bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine [CE567 & CE569], "there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 425 of "RH" Endnotes on CD-ROM (Copyright 2007)

>>> "...And it was not recovered from one of the bodies, so this is hardly definitive proof of anything." <<<

Only a conspiracy kook would say such a stupid thing. Because that
pesky "Sum Total" is saying something much, much different.

>>> "I hope you NEVER serve on a jury as some innocent people may go to jail if you think this is "evidence"." <<<

Yeah, why in the world should I believe that a bullet (CE399) from the
connected with JFK's murder (CE567, CE569, and the 3 spent shells) in
TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS (the Presidential limousine and the TSBD) has
any relationship to this case in any way whatsoever? Right, Mister Kook?

Not to mention the fact that the gun that is connected beyond all
doubt to every ballistics item mentioned above was found on the same
floor in the TSBD where the three spent bullet shells from that rifle
were found.

Just more obvious "connections" to totally ignore or sweep under the
rug, right kookmeister?

>>> "You also have reading issues. I was referring to what [Ben Holmes] posted. He stopped short in his post of what you have included [re: Robert Frazier's WC testimony]." <<<

LOL. Of course he stopped short of that stuff I posted, idiot. He was
merely citing the specific Frazier quotes that proved you were wrong
(please note I did not use the word "liar" here; because you're
probably either just incredibly stupid...or incredibly lazy...one or
the other).

>>> "He [Bob Frazier] did not do the spectrographic tests himself...so why should I assume this [bullet/rifle-matching] is correct?" <<<

You ARE incredibly stupid, aren't you? You're verifying that fact with
each passing post.

What the hell do any "spectrographic" (radiation) tests have to do
with the rifle-matching "ballistics" (striations-matching through a
comparison microscope) that Robert A. Frazier performed?

The "striation" (ballistics) tests proved beyond ALL doubt that CE399,
CE567, and CE569 were positively fired in Lee Oswald's rifle (CE139)
"to the exclusion of all other weapons" (per Frazier of the FBI).

Any spectrographic (or NAA) tests that were done on top of those basic
striation-type ballistics tests would only be corroborative in nature,
which is what I've said for years regarding Dr. Guinn's NAA analysis.

But once Frazier's ballistics/striations tests have proven beyond all
doubt that those bullets and fragments were, in fact, fired in CE139/
C2766 (Oz's gun), then it's a done deal....i.e., those bullets were
definitely fired in that ONE and ONLY rifle "to the exclusion",
regardless of any other type testing that was done on those bullet

Care to take that absurdly-dead horse for another meaningless ride
around the track, Rob?

>>> "They found fibers on the fragments that did not match the seat covers in the car." <<<

LOL. And a "WTF?" for good measure!

Any chance of a citation on this Rob? (Just like pulling teeth out of
a kook, isn't it?)

Even if there were a few fibers on CE567 and CE569 that didn't "match
the seat covers" of the limousine....so what??

Those fragments, regardless of any "fibers" that may or may not have
been found on them, were STILL from a bullet that was undeniably fired
from the gun that was found on the sixth floor of the Depository, and
they were undeniably found inside the limo (undeniably, that is,
unless you're a conspiracy-loving kook who loves to look sideways at
everything and everybody connected with this case).

>>> "What you did not provide is this (5H67, 69), which shows him [Frazier] telling Specter he did not do the spectrographic tests and he was considered just a "firearms expert" (3H392)." <<<

This deserves another "so what"? The spectrographic tests were done to
attempt to determine whether one hunk of bullet can be matched to
another piece of bullet or whole bullet. It's not the same as trying
to match a bullet to a particular GUN (which is what Bob Frazier's
ballistics/striation tests achieved).


>>> "Hey, I do what I can." <<<

Yeah, dishing up conspiracy-flavored kookshit day and night is always quite
useful, isn't it?

>>> "I don't care if you bash me..." <<<

I'm thrilled to have your permission.

>>> "...But you better not say I'm lying when I'm not." <<<

I'm very careful about calling people flat-out "liars". And while you
are immensely kooky and (evidently) just plain stupid regarding many
"JFK" matters, I don't think I've called you a "liar"....yet. But keep
going, maybe you'll make it to Ben Holmes' "Liar's Club" one day.

>>> "Dave, I may not cite upfront, but when have I not cited when you asked? I don't say it if I can't provide a cite." <<<

[VB imitation on...]

"So, in other words, Mr. Caprio, even though the JFK assassination is a detailed case where citations would be quite useful in any serious discussion of the various sub-topics that come up, if DVP doesn't ask you the magic question and specifically ASK you for a citation -- by golly you're not about to tell him!! Is that correct?"

[/VB off.]


"So, in other words, Mr. O'Connor, even though this is one of the most shocking things that you've ever seen, and you're going to remember it till the day you die! And you feel this matter should have been investigated! If those investigators for the House Select Committee didn't ask you the magic question -- by golly you're not about to tell 'em!! Is that correct?" -- Vince Bugliosi (the real one); July 1986; "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"

>>> "I cite from a variety of sources..." <<<

But only when prompted to do so (and only from Kookbooks like Groden's
and Armstrong's and Garrison's, etc.).

Really impressive, Rob.

>>> "...Of course it is easy for you, as you use the WC and Bugman." <<<

Well, like I've said for quite some time -- Why settle for a beat-up
Chevy, when you could just as easily be driving a Cadillac?

David Von Pein
December 12, 2007