It was inconclusive. Big difference.*Roshambo » 31 Mar 2026, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑ “This is not a minor evidentiary dispute,” Brian Allen wrote on X. “If the bullet doesn’t match the gun — the prosecution’s case has a fundamental problem.”“Where are all my neocons who have been ‘overwhelmed’ by the non existent evidence against Tyler Robinson?” Candace Owens wrote. “You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Hope the money was worth it.”![]()
https://i.postimg.cc/CxhrbbM2/showtime-beetlejuice.gif
You don't have to play the role, you perform it 24/7 naturally.Johnny You » 05 Apr 2026, 8:58 am » wrote: ↑ The fairy tale does not seem to be approaching a happy ending.
Logging Out.. Can't play tthe fool here all day...
youtu.be/7i72cbo_qdg?si=k6vJJFJe-tG2I2yf
^^ Oh look, Tactical Timmy has risen from the deadHuey » 05 Apr 2026, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑ It was inconclusive. Big difference.
PolitiFact spoke to forensic science and criminology experts who said an "inconclusive" finding on a bullet fragment like this is not uncommon, and it does not rule out that the weapon used in Kirk's killing was the same one linked to Robinson.
"When the results of a bullet fragment analysis come back as 'inconclusive,' that does not mean that the rifle did not fire the bullet," Christopher Ballard, a spokesperson for the Utah Country Attorney's Office and part of the prosecution team, wrote in an email to PolitiFact. "There just aren't enough marks on the fragment to make a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the bullet fragment was fired by the particular rifle
It is also incorrect to say that the bullet "did not match" the rifle, the experts said. The bullet may simply be too small or too deformed for examiners to provide an accurate analysis.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/did ... sult-means
I didn't speak. PBS and Politifact did.*Roshambo » 05 Apr 2026, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑^^ Oh look, Tactical Timmy has spokenHuey » 05 Apr 2026, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑ It was inconclusive. Big difference.
PolitiFact spoke to forensic science and criminology experts who said an "inconclusive" finding on a bullet fragment like this is not uncommon, and it does not rule out that the weapon used in Kirk's killing was the same one linked to Robinson.
"When the results of a bullet fragment analysis come back as 'inconclusive,' that does not mean that the rifle did not fire the bullet," Christopher Ballard, a spokesperson for the Utah Country Attorney's Office and part of the prosecution team, wrote in an email to PolitiFact. "There just aren't enough marks on the fragment to make a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the bullet fragment was fired by the particular rifle
It is also incorrect to say that the bullet "did not match" the rifle, the experts said. The bullet may simply be too small or too deformed for examiners to provide an accurate analysis.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/did ... sult-means![]()
regardless
BULL CRAP... it's NOT all about the bullet... there is DNA, and video evidence of proximity, and other evidence as well. If this SOB doest FRY... he will wish he had !*Roshambo » 31 Mar 2026, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑ “This is not a minor evidentiary dispute,” Brian Allen wrote on X. “If the bullet doesn’t match the gun — the prosecution’s case has a fundamental problem.”“Where are all my neocons who have been ‘overwhelmed’ by the non existent evidence against Tyler Robinson?” Candace Owens wrote. “You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Hope the money was worth it.”![]()
https://i.postimg.cc/CxhrbbM2/showtime-beetlejuice.gif
If the glove don't fit you must acquitConservativeWave » 05 Apr 2026, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑ BULL CRAP... it's NOT all about the bullet... there is DNA, and video evidence of proximity, and other evidence as well. If this SOB doest FRY... he will wish he had !
ROG62 » 04 Apr 2026, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑ WHOA! Hold the phone!
I was adding “armchair” to your comment about jerritol being a “ballistics expert”…IOW, jerritol’s an armchair ballistics expert…
you’re welcome….
Candace is MAGA.*Roshambo » 31 Mar 2026, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑ “This is not a minor evidentiary dispute,” Brian Allen wrote on X. “If the bullet doesn’t match the gun — the prosecution’s case has a fundamental problem.”“Where are all my neocons who have been ‘overwhelmed’ by the non existent evidence against Tyler Robinson?” Candace Owens wrote. “You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Hope the money was worth it.”![]()
https://i.postimg.cc/CxhrbbM2/showtime-beetlejuice.gif
Cannonpointer » 05 Apr 2026, 5:22 pm » wrote: ↑ Candace is MAGA.
Naturally, she is hated by MIGA.
It's right there in the name, the dispute. Not much middle ground available.
He was agreeing with you, ya gnashing little chihuahua.murdock » 03 Apr 2026, 7:59 pm » wrote: ↑ ^^^dick sucker and liar...
I've been involved in firearms and ballistics for over 45 years, so **** you ya leftist **** stain!
He's a snappy little ****, is our boy murdy.ROG62 » 04 Apr 2026, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑ WHOA! Hold the phone!
I was adding “armchair” to your comment about jerritol being a “ballistics expert”…IOW, jerritol’s an armchair ballistics expert…
you’re welcome….
Did politifact mention that the timeline makes it physically impossible for him to have broken down the rifle to fit the prosecutor's narrative?Huey » 05 Apr 2026, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑ It was inconclusive. Big difference.
PolitiFact spoke to forensic science and criminology experts who said an "inconclusive" finding on a bullet fragment like this is not uncommon, and it does not rule out that the weapon used in Kirk's killing was the same one linked to Robinson.
"When the results of a bullet fragment analysis come back as 'inconclusive,' that does not mean that the rifle did not fire the bullet," Christopher Ballard, a spokesperson for the Utah Country Attorney's Office and part of the prosecution team, wrote in an email to PolitiFact. "There just aren't enough marks on the fragment to make a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the bullet fragment was fired by the particular rifle
It is also incorrect to say that the bullet "did not match" the rifle, the experts said. The bullet may simply be too small or too deformed for examiners to provide an accurate analysis.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/did ... sult-means
That sounds like the bullet was not a match.Huey » 05 Apr 2026, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑ It was inconclusive. Big difference.
PolitiFact spoke to forensic science and criminology experts who said an "inconclusive" finding on a bullet fragment like this is not uncommon, and it does not rule out that the weapon used in Kirk's killing was the same one linked to Robinson.
"When the results of a bullet fragment analysis come back as 'inconclusive,' that does not mean that the rifle did not fire the bullet," Christopher Ballard, a spokesperson for the Utah Country Attorney's Office and part of the prosecution team, wrote in an email to PolitiFact. "There just aren't enough marks on the fragment to make a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the bullet fragment was fired by the particular rifle
It is also incorrect to say that the bullet "did not match" the rifle, the experts said. The bullet may simply be too small or too deformed for examiners to provide an accurate analysis.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/did ... sult-means
People who are better than you.
Cannonpointer » 05 Apr 2026, 5:25 pm » wrote: ↑ He was agreeing with you, ya gnashing little chihuahua.
Flyweight - amirite?
if the bullet don't fit, you must acquit.Cannonpointer » 05 Apr 2026, 5:22 pm » wrote: ↑ Candace is MAGA.
Naturally, she is hated by MIGA.
It's right there in the name, the dispute. Not much middle ground available.
Oh,Barney, you beat all.