On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:13:59 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 9:29:34 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ce399.jpg

Think it through, Gil. If the bullet had been removed from JFK's
body, it would have to have been removed at Parkland since according
to the memo, it flew back to Washington on AF1.
The Parkland team was completely unaware of the back wound since
JFK was on his back from the time he was wheeled into ER1 until he was pronounced dead. The ramifications of the bullet having been removed
by the ER team are enormous. That would mean everyone who was part of
that team was in on the cover up from the beginning because none of
them has ever testified to removing a bullet from JFK's body. How many
more people do we now have to add to the conspiracy?

The far more plausible scenario is that somebody got their signals
crossed. Somebody misunderstood what someone else told them. That sort
of thing happens all the time in everyday life. Why would you think
that couldn't or wouldn't happen during all the interactions between
people regarding the assassination?

So you're saying that the bullet could not have been removed by
Admiral Burkley before the body was placed in a casket ?
Was Burkley ever called to testify ?
What about the guys who put the body in the casket ?
Were they ever called to testify ?
This was one half-assed investigation. A credible investigation would
have sought the truth. It would have been complete. There would have
been no questions.
I once had a lawyer come to me in court and tell me that he couldn't
find any holes in my report and he was going to plead "sufficient
facts" for his client.
THAT'S the way you present a case.
No lingering questions. No doubt.
That wasn't done in this case because this was no investigation. This
was a prosecutor's case without a defense.
You people have convicted Oswald without hearing the defense's case.
What kind of justice is that ?
Can you imagine how full our prisons would be if juries convicted the
accused after hearing only the prosecution's case ?
But that's exactly what you people do.
And when anyone comes along to try to present the "second side of the
story", you folks ridicule and demean them.
Your source is the Warren Commission.
Your evidence is testimony.
That's all you folks know: one side of the story.
And that's why you folks are not fit to be jurors in this case.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)