Text 8642, 90 rader
Skriven 2010-06-15 20:44:44 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
   Kommentar till text 8452 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Free Peltier
====================
09 Jun 10 12:03, Ward Dossche wrote to Roy Witt:


 RW>> WD> The FBI's practices in this case (and probably others) are known
 RW>> WD> when it relates to American Indians.

 RW>> If you really believe the criminals. They're all innocent you know.

 WD> Some time ago you claimed indian ancestry ...

That doesn't mean I'm obligated to support known murderers of the same
ancestry.

 RW>> WD> The firing pin was OK.

 RW>> Even if it was, the use of it in a working firearm other than the
 RW>> firearm it came from wouldn't be the same.

 WD> The mark left on the shell is exactly the same.

Wrong. You need to study up on your ballistics. i.e. no two firearms will
ever show ballistically to be exactly the same.

 RW>> I'd have to go back and read the reports, but if I recall, the other
 RW>> shooters' AR-15s were shown not to be the ones that killed the FBI
 RW>> agents.

 WD> The FBI-agents' remains had no bullets in them that could be matched
 WD> to a rifle. They went clear through...

Entry wounds would indicate the caliber, none the same...going on through
means it was a high powered cartridge, which would narrow the amount of
rifles capable of fireing that round. The group engaged with the FBI
agents were known to carry that type of weapons.

 RW>> WD> You can still check the extractor marks,

 RW>> Nope. The firearm used by the killer wasn't operable. You can't
 RW>> compare that which you cannot obtain.

 WD> In order to check the extractor marks, one does not need to fire the
 WD> weapon.

Wrong again. You need to have a fired cartridge in the chamber to address
the weight differencs of a fired vs a non-fired cartridge. Plus, you would
need the firing pin intact to show where it hit the cartridge primer vs
another suspected weapon. Back to ballistics school for you.

 RW>> Only if you can shoot the damaged firearm to retrieve bullets
 RW>> 'known' to be fired from that weapon.

 WD> You don't need the full weapon to check that ... merely its barrel.

Wrong. See above and then ask your professor of ballistics 101 if you have
any doubt.

 WD> However it is futile to discuss this as the original statement comes
 WD> from the FBI's forensic expert whose evidence was kept from the
 WD> defence at the time.

Wrong. All prosecutoral evidence is given to the defense in every case
and vice versa, that's the law. It avoids surprises during trial and gives
both sides a chance to prepare for a prosecution or defense that won't
take up valuable court time.

 RW>> Nor can he prove that he did it, even if he were alive to try. The
 RW>> court won't take  his word for it because he says so.

 WD> That's a statement worthy of preservation for later reference.

It's a precident set into law here many, many years ago. Precident saves
court time by not hearing what has already been decided by a court in the
past. If a lawyer doesn't have a set of books with those precidents in
them, the court library will.

 RW>> RW>> Redford is a nut case himself.

 RW>> WD> My mam loved his blue eyes.

 RW>> I liked Hitler's waddle-shuffle as he walked, but not the man.

 WD> I like your mustache.

I give free mustache rides to certain types of females.

                R\%/itt

 "Peltier was responsible for the close range execution of FBI agents..."
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)