Liberal Forum

The defense released a statement sayi9ng that the bullet did "“did not match” Tyler Robinson's gun. So of course, the headlines went ape ****. Podcasters flooded social media, etc...the usual knee-jerk reaction. One problem. That isn't exactly true. 


The ATF result was inconclusive: the bullet fragment “could not be identified or excluded” as having been fired from the rifle. They could not prove it came from that rifle, but they also could not rule the rifle out. Big difference. This is what happens when dishonest scum spew crap. They know how to manipulate wrods to get the mass on their side. 
 

Vegas » Today, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:50 am

The defense released a statement sayi9ng that the bullet "“did not match” Tyler Robinson's gun. So of course, the headlines went ape ****. Podcasters flooded social media, etc...the usual knee-jerk reaction. One problem. That isn't exactly true. 

The ATF result was inconclusive: the bullet fragment “could not be identified or excluded” as having been fired from the rifle. They could not prove it came from that rifle, but they also could not rule the rifle out. Big difference. This is what happens when dishonest scum spew crap. They know how to manipulate wrods to get the mass on their side. 
 
The truth? Well...evidently that is irrelevant.

I am convinced Tyler is not the shooter.
 

*Roshambo » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

I am convinced Tyler is not the shooter.

I'm convinced you're a tranny queer, just like the *** shooter.

RebelGator » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

I'm convinced you're a tranny queer, just like the *** shooter.

remember folks.. I busted this Homosexual’s job club and he is bitter.
 

*Roshambo » 36 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

36 minutes ago

I am convinced Tyler is not the shooter.

I don't believe he is either, but the defense should stick with honest practices. They deliberately reframed the wording for the purpose of attaining mob support. Let the truth be the defense. They don't need to reframe anything. 

Vegas » Today, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:50 am

The defense released a statement sayi9ng that the bullet "“did not match” Tyler Robinson's gun. So of course, the headlines went ape ****. Podcasters flooded social media, etc...the usual knee-jerk reaction. One problem. That isn't exactly true. 

The ATF result was inconclusive: the bullet fragment “could not be identified or excluded” as having been fired from the rifle. They could not prove it came from that rifle, but they also could not rule the rifle out. Big difference. This is what happens when dishonest scum spew crap. They know how to manipulate wrods to get the mass on their side. 
 
The truth? Well...evidently that is irrelevant. 
 
 
 


 

I do believe he is the killer.   I have spoken about this before. Inclusive finding is not uncommon

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."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2026 ... onclusive/
 
 

Vegas » 21 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

21 minutes ago

I don't believe he is either, but the defense should stick with honest practices. They deliberately reframed the wording for the purpose of attaining mob support. Let the truth be the defense. They don't need to reframe anything.

If the glove doesn’t fit…
 

Huey » 27 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

27 minutes ago

I do believe he is the killer.   I have spoken about this before. Inclusive finding is not uncommon

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."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2026 ... onclusive/

But doesn't that create reasonable doubt? 

Vegas » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

But doesn't that create reasonable doubt? 

 

Not if you have other evidence.  
 

Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Not if you have other evidence.

True. It's going to be tough on the prosecution though. no witnesses, that we know about, the bullet fragment is inconclusive, the vid evidence is just him on a roof ,with a gun, but it doesn't show him firing, so I don't know. They have their work cut out for them. 

Huey » 41 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

41 minutes ago

Not if you have other evidence.

Or if you have a brain that can reason.