PROOF THE FBI ALTERED DOCUMENTS AND VINCENT BUGLIOSI WAS WRONG
Gil Jesus
An excellent article by Pat Speer:
Gil Jesus
bigdog
Do you think by bumping this thread people will find this less boring
than it was yesterday?
curtjester1
Do you think not confronting evidence time and time again will make
you any more enlightened?
CJ
curtjester1
(1 user) More options Feb 12 2008, 6:54 pm
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
From: curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
Date: 12 Feb 2008 17:54:26 -0500
Local: Tues, Feb 12 2008 6:54 pm
Subject: Oswald's Possessions Arrive In Washington, D.C.
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
From handwritten lists of evidence collected at 1026 N. Beckley
(Oswald's apartment) and 2515 W. 5th (Ruth Paine's), DPD secretaries
created typewritten inventories which were published in the Warren
Volumes and identified as exhibits "Stovall A," "Stovall B," and
"Turner Ex. No 1."
Around midnight the Dallas police photographed the items of evidence
(Oswald's possessions), grouped together, on the floor of the police
station. During the evening, FBI agents repeatedly approached Dallas
Police Chief Jesse Curry and insisted that all of the physical
evidence be released to the Bureau. Curry told the WC, "We got
several calls insisting we send this, and nobody would tell me
exactly
who it was that was insisting, 'just say I got a call from
Washington,
and they wanted this evidence up there,' insinuating i was someone in
high authority that was requesting this...."
**When WC member Allen Dulles heard Chief Curry's answer he knew the
"someone in high authority" was probably his close friend President
Lyndon Johnson, and, in order to avoid further probing questions,
***abrubtly adjouned the hearing.*** Dulles was the only member of
the Commission who understood the reason for sending Oswald's
possessions to the FBI as quickly as possible. The reason was to
identify and eliminate items of evidence which suggested there was a
second Oswald or suggested that Oswald was connected with U.S.
Intelligence agencies.
When Curry's testimony resumed not another word was mentioned about
"someone in high authority."
**It was President Johnson's aide, Cliff Carter, who ordered the DPD
to turn over all evidence to the FBI on Friday eventing and there is
little doubt that it was Lyndon Johnson who instructed Carter to
phone
the DPD.**
Chief Curry told the Commission, "Around midnight of Friday night we
agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would
bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by
and
when they were finished with it to return it to us." The Dallas
Police then gave all the physical evidence, ***without a written
inventory,*** to FBI agent Vince Drain who departed from Carswell Air
Force Base aboard a C-130 tanker at 3:10 am for Washington, DC. *SA
Drain did not testify before the Warren Commission.*
From the testimony of Jesse Curry the Warren Commission learned the
FBI had taken Oswald's possessions to Washington DC during the early
morning hours of November 23rd. As seasoned lawyers, the Commission
membersand thier staff understood the "custodial chain of evidence"
from the DPD to the FBI had been broken. There was no written
record
of the items taken by the FBI to Washington on November 23rd nor was
there a written record of the itmes returned to the Dallas Police
three days later (November 26).
** The Dallas Police and FBI prepared an inventory which listed the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, the .38 S&W pistol, bullet fragments, shell
casings, a blanket, Oswald's shirt, and paper and tape samples from
the TSBD. These items were photographed as a group at 9:00 pm by
Lieutenant J. C. Day prior to turning them over to the FBI (This
photograph also shows the ***two spent cartridges*** (not 3) which
the
police found on the 6th floor of the TSBD). But no inventory list
accompanied the hundreds of items of evidence, found by the Dallas
Police, to FBI Headquarters during the early morning hours of
November
23rd.
At the FBI laboratory in Washington technicians conducted a test on
Oswald's shirt, one of the items inventoried and photographed, to
determine if a tuft of fibers found on the butt of the Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle matched the fibers on the shirt. The subsequent FBI
report of November 23 said the fibers "match in microscopic
characteristics....the shirt of the suspect. These fibers could have
originated from this shirt." ***But the fibers did not come from the
shirt Oswald was wearing at the TSBD on November 22. After arriving
at 1026 N. Beckley Oswald changed clothes and wore a different shirt
to the Texas Theater.*** The fibers found on the rifle could not
possibly have come from this shirt.**
James Cadigan, an FBI document specialist, received the confiscated
items (Oswald's possessions) at FBI headquarters in Washington. When
Cadigan first testified before the WC, the only Commission member
present was former CIA Director Allen Dulles. Cadigan said,
"Initially, the first big batch of evidence was ***brought into the
laboratory on November 23*** and this consisted of many, many
items...It was a ***very large quantity of evidence that was brought
in.***
Commission attorney Melvin Eisenberg learned just how many items the
FBI received when he asked Cadigan if he remembered one particular
item. Cadigan said, "On November 23, when the vast bulk of this
material came in it was photographed....to select one item out of
***four or five hundred.**** I cannot, in all honesly, say I
definitely recall seeing this..." *Eisenberg now knew that ***"four
or five hundred"*** items of evidence, which belonged to Oswald, were
***"brought into the FBI laboratory on November 23rd.***" He also
knew that no inventory list accompanied these items from Dallas to
FBI
Headquarters (Nov. 23) or from FBI Headquarters to Dallas (Nov. 26).*
BROWN FINGERPRINT INK. When the FBI laboratory received Oswald's
possessions on the early mornng of November 23, many of the items
were
immediately treated with a brown colored ink to check for
fingerprints. Under normal conditions, when the testing was
complete,
items were re-trated with a special chemical that neutralized and
removed all traces of the brown fingerprint ink. This neutralizing
process was known as "desilvering" and was briefly mentioned by
Cadigan. WC attorney Melvin Eisenberg was discussing Oswald's FPCC
card and asked Cadigan, "Do you know why CE 820 was not processed or
desilvered?" Cadigan replied, "Time was of the essence and ***this
material, I believe was returned to the Dallas Police within two or
three days***.....There was insufficient time to desilver it."
*Eisenberg now knew that the hundreds of items of evidence
confiscated
by the Dallas Police (Oswald's possessions) were secretly sent to FBI
headquarters in the early morning hours of November 23, and then
quietly returned to the Dallas Police three days later (November
26).*
CJ
curtjester1
Part II
TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE. The urgency to return the items of evidence
to Dallas was probably the result of a conversation between FBI
Director Hoover and President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was planning
to
announce that the FBI was taking over the invesigation, *and physical
evidence needed to be in Dallas so the police could "officially" turn
the evidence over to the FBI.* Prior to the announcement hundreds of
items of evidence at the FBI laboratory were collected in haste
before
lab technicians had time to complete the desilvering process on all
the items. One of the items that was not "desilvered" by lab
technicians was Oswald's FPCC card. Warren Commission attorney
Melvin
Eisenberg asked Cadigan, "Do you know why 820 was not reprocessed or
desilvered?"
Neither the WC nor the FBI wanted the public to find out the Bureau
had secretly taken evidence to the Dallas Police a few days later,
***so testimony and photographs had to be altered.*** The transcript
of James Cadigan's ***original*** deposition (pp. 49-50) reads,
"***Time was of the essence and this material, I believe was returned
to the Dallas Police within tow or three days...**" *But someone
drew
lines through the ***original*** typewritten transcript and wrote
***"delete"***. This portion of Cadigan's testimony was deleted and
does not appear in his testimony as published on page 434 of Volume
VII of the Warren Volumes.
Thanks to James Cadigan, and his original WC testimony which is
preserved in the National Archives (released 1992), we now know the
FBI secretly obrained ***the items of evidence listed on the Dallas
Police inventories*** for November 22/23, kept them in Washington, DC
for three days, and then quietly ***returned them to the Dallas
Police.***
*While Oswald's possessions were in FBI custody many key pieces of
evidence were altered (W-2 forms), manipulated (Minox camera/light
meter), and suppressed (Lee Oswald's wallet found by Captain
Westbrook). Without a written inventory either to or from the Dallas
Police, the FBI was not concerned that their tampering with would be
discovered.
Oswald's Possessions Are Returned To The Dallas Police
Department
On November 26, the "hundreds of items" were returned to the DPD
headquarters *so that an inventory could be created to show a "chain
of possession" from the DPD to the FBI.* All items were photographed
at DPD headquarters with a desk mounted Recordak camera, which was
known for taking precise, crystal-clear photographs. The police used
4 rolls of 35mm film, 25 feet in length, and 1 roll of 35 mm film
that
was 100 feet in length. As each item was photographed it was listed
on one of 25 typewritten pages of inventory, which were jointly
initialed by FBI agents and Dallas Police officers.
President Johnson announced the FBI was taking over the investigation
and shortly thereafter the Dallas Police gave hundreds of items of
evidence to the FBI in front of TV cameras and reporters. The Dallas
Police, who did not have time to develop the film, also gave the five
rolls of film to the FBI. They requested that the FBI develop the
film and provide them with two photographs of each item of evidence.
***BUT THERE WERE PROBLEMS*** If the FBI developed the 5 rolls of
film and returned the photographs of all items to the Dallas Police,
*then many of the photgraphs would show items that had been treated
with the brown fingerprint ink-applied at the FBI laboratory from
November 23-25. These photographs were "proof" that the FBI secretly
had these items of evidence in their possession *before they took
over
the case on November 26th.*
Another problem was the volume of evidence, *which grew considerably
while in FBI custody*. The items confiscated by the Dallas Police on
November 22-23 were listed on 5 typewritten pages, *but it took ***21
typewritten pages*** to list all of the items that were returned to
the Dallas Police and listed on the joint DPD/FBI inventory of
November 26. If both lists are placed side by side, *it is apparent
that the FBI returned far more items to the Dallas Police than they
received.*
**In 1999 the author visited the National Archives in order to
examine
and compare each item of evidence listed on the 5 pages of DPD
inventory (November 23) with the joint FBI/DPD inventory (November
26). He began by examining the items listed on the DPD inventory of
November 22/23 and found that each item was properly initialed by
Dallas Police officers.
He then located those items on the joint FBI/DPD inventory of
November
26 (CE 2003 pp. 263-283). He soon realized there were many more
items
listed on the joint FBI/DPD inventory of 11/26/63 than were listed on
the original DPD inventory of 11/22-23/63. It was clear that items
of
evidence were added while in FBI custody and also clear that none of
these items ***contained the initials of Dallas Police officers.***
This means that either DPD officers forgot to initial over a hundred
items of evidence, forgot to list those items in inventory, and
forgot
to photograph them on the floor of DPD headquarters, ***or the FBI
added items of evidence to the inventory between the 23rd and 26th of
November.***
*The FBI not only added items to the inventory, they also discarded
and/or switched items of evidence.* Dallas Police Officers Gus Roe
and Richard Stoval found a Minox camera at Ruth Paine's. Rose said,
"Among the property we found a little Minox minature camea and on
checking it, it did have a litle roll of film in it ***(along with 9
additional rolls of Minox film)***....All of the property we
recovered
from the residence, I initialed it, Stovall and I initialed it and
dated it for evidence."
Rose and Stovall also listed the miniature camera on their
handwritten
inventory and on the typewritten inventory which was identified by
the
WC as Stovall Exhibit A and published on pages 596-597 in Volume 21.
On the evening of November 22 the Minox camera was photographed on
the
floor of the Dallas Police station along with other items confiscated
by the Dallas Police.
On November 26, 1963 the Minox camera was listed as item #375 on the
joint FBI/DPD inventory. But after the Minox camera arrived at FBI
headquarters in Washington, DC, SA Vincent Drain and SA Warren
DeBrueys created a second inventory, ***and changed the Minox camera
to a Minox light meter (Item #375).*** The FBI then, "re-
photographed" a Minox light meter, identified it as item #375, and
sent the photograph to the Dallas Police *in an attempt to convince
the police they had received a light meter and not a miniature spy
camera.*
Finally, FBI agents met with Gus Rose (DPD officer who found the
Minos) and H.W. Hill (property clerk) on three separate occasions and
tried to convince them they found a light Minox light meter and not a
Minox camera. The FBI agents insisted the Dallas Police change their
inventory from a camera to a light meter, *probably so they wouldn't
have to explain to the press why Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy
camera (often seen in James Bond films). Gus Rose discused the
problem with Captain Fritz and, after getting his approval, told the
FBI agents he would not change the inventory.
** Both Drain and DeBrueys should have been asked who instructed them
to create a new inventory at FBI headquarters.
In an attempt to keep th public from learning that HARVEY Oswald
owned
a miniature spy camera, which would suggest he had intelligence
connections, the Bureau sought and received helf from Ruth and
Michael
Paine. On January, 31, 1964 FBI agent Bardwell Odum ***allegedly***
obtained a Minox II camera, serial number 27259, from Michael Paine.
The Bureau the announced that the Minox camera in their custody
belonged to Michael Paine, and not to Oswald (nothing further was
said
about the Minox camera found by Dallas Police.)
On June 23, 1964 FBI agent Warren Debrueys ***allegedly*** returned
the Minox camera to Ruth Paine in Irving, Texas. Michael Paine, on
the nationally broadcast television program Frontline (1994),
confirmed the Minox camera had been returned to him by the FBI and
said the camera was subsequently lost. ***But there was still a
problem.***
The National Archives currently has a Minox III camera, found by the
Dallas Police ini Ruth Paine's garage. This camera is currently
inoperable, is unable to be opened, and therefore the serial number
remains unknown. The Minox Corporation (and thier web site) advises
that Minox III cameras were manufactured with serial numbers 31275
thru 58499. Therefore, the Minox which the FBI obtained from Michael
Paine on January 31, 1964 (serial number 27259) was not the camera
found by Dallas Police which is now in the National Archives. The
serial number of Michael Paine's camera, listed on an FBI Airtel of
2/2/64, shows that it was a ***Minox II***(Minox II cameras were
manufactured with serial numbers up to 31500. The FBI's attempt to
hide the fact that HARVEY Oswald owned a Minox camera is one of the
best known and documented examples of their attempts to alter and
fabricate evidence.**
In an attempt to hide these problems the FBI developed the 5 rolls of
DPD film and then *destroyed the negatives that showed those items of
evidence that were discovered by the brown fingerprint ink.* They
also, *destroyed negatives which showed items of evidence that had
been switched, altered, or destroyed while in their custody.* The
remainder of the original 5 rolls of film was spliced together into
***two rolls,*** which were then copied and sent to the Dallas Police
Department. *The Dallas City Archives has copies of the 2 rolls
available for inspection, and the splicings can be seen easily.*
After the Dallas Police received the film Chief Curry noticed that
many of the negatives were missing and notified the Special Agent in
Charge of the Dallas Office, Gordon Shanklin, by letter. On December
3rd Curry wrote, "On developing the microfilm it has been found that
items #164 thru 360 inclusive did not record." *(Curry's letter
shows
that ***over half of the negatives, 196 in total, were missing!!)***
**The 1st roll of film in the Dallas City Archives contains negatives
#1 through #163. The 2nd roll contains negatives #361 through #451
(3
rolls of original film were destroyed by the FBI).**
J. Edgar Hoover responded to Chief Curry's letter by claiming,
*incredibly*, that the missing negatives were the result of "faulty
technique" by the Dallas Police photographer who photographed
Oswald's
possessions. *If there was any faulty technique it could have easily
have been seen, frame by frame, on the original 35mm film, but 196
continuous frames were cut (physically removed) from the original 5
rolls of film.*
To placate Chief Curry the FBI re-photographed the "missing" items
and
sent copies of the photographs to Dallas. But the new photographs
did
not match the description of the items listed on the joint DPD/FBI
inventory of November 26, 1963. To deal with this problem the FBI
simply created a new inventory to match their new photographs which
Hoover sent along with a memo to Gordon Shanklin, SAC Dallas:
"The inventory list submitted by your office (joint FBI/DPD inventory
of November 26, 63) has been superseded by the list furnished to your
office by the FBI laboratory dated 2/1/64. The 11/26/63 list is
***incomplete and is not completely accurate."***
This memo is incredible!! Hoover told Gordon Shaklin that the joint
FBI/DPD inventory of November 26, 1963 was ***incomplete and not
accurate,*** *but there was nothing Shanklin could do.* He dared
not
argue with Hoover and simply followed instructions by providing a
copy
of the new FBI inventory to the Dallas Police.
** Even though the Dallas Police refused to change their inventory
from a Minox camera to a Minox light meter, the FBI chnged their
inventory. The "re-photographed" item #375 (originally a Minox
camera) and sent a photograph to Dallas. The someone at FBI
headquarers forgot to rid of the Minox camera found by the Dallas
Police in Ruth Paine's garage, and it was turned over to the National
Archives where it can be examined today.
The FBI's alteration of the DPD inventory and film is irrefutable
proof that the Bureau destroyed evidence in order to help fram Oswald
and keep the public from learning the truth about his connection to
US
Intelligence and his background.
CJ
Gil Jesus
> Do you think by bumping this thread people will find this less boring
> than it was yesterday?
Why do you say it was boring, did you find someone to read it to you ?
That's your response to the EVIDENCE, whining that the subject was
bumped ?
How embarrassing.
An honest error would have required letting the error go through and
adding a correction DATED ON THE DAY OF THE CORRECTION.
But a more sinister action would have been for the FBI to rewrite the
report without the originator's knowledge, CHANGE what the report said
and then date it TWO DAYS BEFORE it received the results.
So, which one did they do ?
C'mon Bigdumbass, tell us.
drummist1965
Gil, the hypocrite, uses vulgarity, again!
David Von Pein
PAT SPEER SAID (IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE THAT APPEARS AT MARY FERRELL'S
WEBSITE):
>>> "Historians, of all stripes and shapes, operate under the assumption the documents they are studying are written on the day they are dated, and are written by those signing the document. If Vincent Drain, when given the chance, had simply admitted he'd screwed up, and that his superiors had forced him to rewrite an inaccurate report, and that this was the only time this happened, perhaps we might still feel confident this holds true of FBI documents. Drain's initials, after all, appear on the revised document. But he did not. He either lied or forgot entirely about what would have to be considered a major mistake on his part. As a consequence, we are left to wonder...did the paper sample have the "same observable characteristics" as the bag, or were the paper sample and bag "found not to be identical"?" <<<
As is always the case when JFK conspiracy theorists get ahold of
something they deem to be "suspicious" or "misleading" or
"conspiratorial", this whole issue about the two different FBI reports
(concerning the paper sample that was taken from the Texas School Book
Depository shortly after the assassination) is another tiny anthill
that conspiracists like Patrick Speer have decided to turn into Mount
Everest.
The two documents, which conspiracy theorists believe are totally
contradictory documents regarding the sample of paper that the FBI
obtained from the Depository on November 22 (not to be confused with
the December 1st paper sample, which was used to construct the replica
"bag"), are not really "contradictory" at all, in my view.
One of the documents (almost certainly the original report filed by
Vincent Drain in late November 1963) states that the sample paper was
"found not to be identical" with the paper bag found in the
Depository's Sniper's Nest (CE142), while the "corrected" document
states that the sample paper exhibits the "same observable
characteristics" as CE142.
But those two statements are not really contradictory at all, IMO. The
sample paper could very well have had the "same observable
characteristics" and yet not be "identical" to the paper in CE142.
To offer up a parallel circumstance -- It's very similar to the
situation that occurred with the bullets that were removed from
Officer J.D. Tippit's body. The FBI's firearms experts couldn't say
that those four bullets had positively been fired from Lee Oswald's
revolver, but the FBI's Cortlandt Cunningham did say that "the rifling
characteristics of Commission Exhibit 143 [Oswald's revolver] are the
same as those present on the four bullets".
So, the "characteristics" are the same, but the word "identical"
cannot be used. And I think the same thing applies to the paper
sample. There were "characteristics" that were the same in both the
sample paper and CE142, but the FBI might have also been correct in
stating that the two paper items were not "identical" to one another.*
* = Although the FBI's James Cadigan DID refer to the 11/22/63 paper
sample as being identical to that of CE142 (the Sniper's-Nest paper
bag) when Cadigan said "Yes" when answering the following two
questions asked by Melvin Eisenberg of the Warren Commission:
MR. EISENBERG -- "In all these cases, did you make the examination
both of the tape and the paper in each of the bag and the sample
[referring here to CE677, not CE364]?"
MR. CADIGAN -- "Oh, yes."
MR. EISENBERG -- "And they were all identical?"
MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes."
But in the final analysis, the second version of Vincent Drain's
report (Commission Document #5, below) is probably the most accurate
of the two reports, because the specific words that appear in Drain's
initial version of the report -- "found not to be identical" -- are
too restrictive and a little misleading. And those words are also
totally at odds with James Cadigan's testimony that I provided above,
as well.
Whereas, the following verbiage that is found in CD5 is probably more
accurate verbiage and is not as misleading (which is undoubtedly why
the change was made in the first place; but a conspiracy theorist's
mileage will, of course, vary on that particular point):
"This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found to have
the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like
a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting on the sixth
floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building." -- Via Commission
Document #5
www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=328890
WAS BUGLIOSI WRONG CONCERNING THE DATES? NOT AT ALL:
As for Pat Speer's complaint about Vincent Bugliosi not recognizing
something shady or suspicious with respect to the DATE on the November
29, 1963, FBI report submitted by Vincent Drain (with Mr. Speer
hinting that the FBI was up to no good because the 11/29/63 Drain
document was dated BEFORE the "replica paper bag" was created by the
FBI on December 1, 1963) --- apparently Mr. Speer is unaware that the
11/29/63 Drain document is NOT referring to the replica paper bag that
was made by the FBI on 12/1/63.
As I alluded to earlier in this post, there were TWO different samples
of paper taken from the Book Depository--on two separate dates--after
the assassination, with the first of these samples being taken on the
day of the assassination itself (11/22/63). And Vince Bugliosi
discusses both of these paper samples in his book "Reclaiming
History".
In fact, the "RH" book excerpts cited by Speer in his article linked
at the top of this post verify that Mr. Bugliosi was aware of (and
discusses in his book) the TWO different samples of paper that were
obtained by the FBI.
The November 29th FBI/Drain document is referring to the sample of
paper (not a "replica bag") that was obtained by the FBI from the
Texas School Book Depository on November 22nd (which is viewable in
CE677).
James Cadigan of the FBI testified about the two different paper
samples in his Warren Commission testimony. Here are some excerpts
from that testimony:
JAMES C. CADIGAN -- "I first saw this paper bag [CE142] on November
23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and
tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963,
which is FBI Exhibit D-1 [aka CE677, linked below]."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0180b.htm
[Later...]
MR. CADIGAN -- "This is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack
similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School
Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in
Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit
142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and
they thought...it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask, "Did you see
a bag like that?", so they went to the Texas School Book Depository
and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0492b.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm
As we can easily determine from the above testimony of James Cadigan,
the paper sample that Vincent Drain refers to in his 11/29/63 FBI
report is obviously NOT the "replica paper BAG" that was fashioned by
the FBI two days AFTER Drain's report was written.
Therefore, Drain's November 29th report MUST be referring to the
sample of paper that was obtained on November 22nd, one week prior to
Drain's report being completed.
FOOTNOTE:
I do want to give Patrick Speer ample credit for one thing in his
above-linked article -- Pat does a fantastic job at providing the
proper citations and links to all of the pertinent documents
concerning this topic. Excellent job on that, Pat.
It's just a shame that all of that research and source citing has been
wasted on something that is so totally unimportant and insignificant
as the two statements repeated below....which are statements that are,
in my opinion, not necessarily contradictory at all:
"SAME OBSERVABLE CHARACTERISTICS" and "FOUND NOT TO BE
IDENTICAL".
David Von Pein
September 2, 2009
ShutterBun
> But those two statements are not really contradictory at all, IMO. The
> sample paper could very well have had the "same observable
> characteristics" and yet not be "identical" to the paper in CE142.
Indeed. It's just this kind of language that slides right into the
wheelhouse of a conspiracy theorist.
They have a field day with these things. So we end up with statements
like:
"Could not positively identify, but said he looks like the man"
becomes "refused to identify!"
"Not conclusively proven, but consistent with" becomes "refused to
identify the bullet!"
"Could not say with 100% certainty" becomes "could not say."
"Was never offered a polygraph" becomes "did not agree to a
polygraph."
"Was nearly certain" becomes "was somewhat uncertain."
Etc.
In this case, it's all moot of course, since we KNOW Oswald carried a
long brown paper package into work that day. Where he got the paper
is relatively insignificant, although it would make sense that he
yoinked it from his employer.
But! You say, what about the bigger issue! The FBI is tampering with
its own reports, covering its tracks, etc. in order to frame Oswald!
Umm...really? Was the paper's origin really the linchpin of the whole
case?
And really, all you have to do is combine both versions of the report,
and you end up being told that the paper was "similar in observable
characteristics, but not identical." Heaven forbid the FBI
proofreaders would want a second crack at a report that inadvertantly
could have (and indeed has been) used to form an assumption that the
paper in the TSBD was specifically exluded (which it wasn't.)
The only thing Bugliosi got wrong is that he was apparently unaware
about which two documents were in conflict. While his version of
events centers around two distinct paper samples, the other conflict
arises from mere wordplay. I hardly think this is the first time the
FBI has sought to clarify a written conclusion in a memo.
Bottom line: "consistent with" and "not identical" aren't mutually
exclusive terms.
Robert
The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
JURISDICTION! This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court
of law perspective.
NO other one thing shows us more why LHO could NOT be allowed to make
it to a court of law than this!
Walt
Get off this "legally acceptable" Bullshit....... we're not in
court. Try using your head and commonsense.
There's NO doubt that there is a mountain of controversy surrounding
the paper bag. The Lner's NEED that bit of "evidence" to make their
case and they are not going to pull their heads out of their asses
regardless what the facts show.
The facts show that there are three different bags in the
equation .... NONE of them are the bag that Oswald carried to work
that morning. We can know that this is a fact because the ONLY two
witnesses who saw Lee oswald carry a paper sack said that it was NOT
MORE THAN 28 inches long....... And all of the other bags in the
equation are about three feet long.
We know that Lt Day had in his possession a trianglar (guncase shaped)
bag that was very different than the rectangular bags that were
presented as proof that Oswald carried a 40 inch long model 91/38
Mannlicher Carcano into the TSBD that morning..... That's bag "A"
We know that the FBI FABRICATED a fake "exact replica" of the bag that
alledgedly was found by detective Johnson or Montgomery ...That's bag
"B"
We Know that detective Montgomery was photographed carrying a large
paper bag from the TSBD at about 2:30 that afternoon.... That's bag
"C"
we kbnow that the Warren Commission had TWO different numbers for the
paper bags.......
These are FACTS.......
If Oswald carried a 35 inch long model 91/38 Carcano stock in a 28
inch bag without staining the inside of the bag with gun oil and
without leaving even a scintilla of evidence that there had been a
oily disassembled gun in that bag .....He was the world's greatest
magician.
Steve
So Walt you big dumbass, you DO admit that Oswald carried a bag to
work with him that was 28 inches long? (Even though you conveniently
failed to include both witnesses qualifying comments that they paid
very little attention to the size of the bag in the first place--but
that is understandable. CT often leave out any portion of testimony
that doesn't jibe with their love of Oswald.)
So Walt, you big dumbass, please tell us where the bag Oswald carried
to work went and what was in it?
Also Walt you big dumbass. Why didn't Oswald admit he carried a long
package into work with him if it didn't contain a rifle? Why wouldn't
your boyfriend Oswald have simply admitted he HAD a long bag in it
contained such and such? WOuldn't an innocent person wrongly accused
of a murder think of that? Even a big dumbass like you has to admit
that Oswald acted 100% guilty in NOT telling what happened to the
"real" bag and what was "really" in it.
I asked this quesiton on MY other post and you were unable to answer
it at that time. Have you gotten any smarter or are you still the big
dumbass you appear to be?
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Sep 1, 10:43=A0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Chang...
>
>The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
>the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
>JURISDICTION! This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court
>of law perspective.
Untrue.
>NO other one thing shows us more why LHO could NOT be allowed to make
>it to a court of law than this!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Walt
Which question ?....ya stupid bastard you've asked about a dozen.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robert
> On Sep 3, 8:58 am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 1, 10:43 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>
> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Chang...
>
> > The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
> > the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
> > JURISDICTION! This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court
> > of law perspective.
>
> > NO other one thing shows us more why LHO could NOT be allowed to make
> > it to a court of law than this!
>
> Get off this "legally acceptable" Bullshit....... we're not in
> court. Try using your head and commonsense.
SORRY WALLY THE TROLL BUT MURDER CASES ARE SOLVED IN COURT -- NOT THE
INTERNET! I know all LNers like you wish it were NOT true, but that
is the facts!
Does this mess up Wally's little game? Does his big ego NOT get
fulfilled if the case would have been thrown out of court?
Wally doesn't think we should discuss "legally acceptable" stuff in
regards to a murder!
What a WC shill he is.
Robert
> In article <9acd43a0-bd3e-48d5-8aea-4fb064aac...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert says...
>
>
>
> >On Sep 1, 10:43=A0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>
> >>http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Chang...
>
> >The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
> >the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
> >JURISDICTION! This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court
> >of law perspective.
>
> Untrue.
YOU are a liar Bendsie! When one turns over evidence, and in this
case the body, to those NOT in legal jurisdiction you ruin the CHAIN
OF CUSTODY! Do you even understand what this means? I doubt it as ALL
you WC shills and trolls lie about this part.
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Sep 3, 3:21=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9acd43a0-bd3e-48d5-8aea-4fb064aac...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 1, 10:43=3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>>
>.
>>
>> >The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
>> >the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
>> >of law perspective.
>>
>> Untrue.
>
>YOU are a liar Bendsie! When one turns over evidence, and in this
>case the body, to those NOT in legal jurisdiction you ruin the CHAIN
>OF CUSTODY! Do you even understand what this means? I doubt it as ALL
>you WC shills and trolls lie about this part.
Untrue. You will continue to refuse to cite for this...
Walt
> On Sep 3, 12:49 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 3, 8:58 am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 1, 10:43 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>
> > > >http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Chang...
>
> > > The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
> > > the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
> > > JURISDICTION! This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court
> > > of law perspective.
>
> > > NO other one thing shows us more why LHO could NOT be allowed to make
> > > it to a court of law than this!
>
> > Get off this "legally acceptable" Bullshit....... we're not in
> > court. Try using your head and commonsense.
>
> SORRY WALLY THE TROLL BUT MURDER CASES ARE SOLVED IN COURT -- NOT THE
> INTERNET! I know all LNers like you wish it were NOT true, but that
> is the facts!
That is the facts?...... If what you are attempting to say is
true.... Doesn't the defendant have to be ambulatory and breathing in
court?
Are you saying that Oswald is still alive and can be brought to court?
>
> Does this mess up Wally's little game? Does his big ego NOT get
> fulfilled if the case would have been thrown out of court?
>
> Wally doesn't think we should discuss "legally acceptable" stuff in
> regards to a murder!
Not exactly stupid bastard..... but your whole idea is the product of
a screwed mess of gray matter.....Didn't you write:..."The WHOLE point
of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
JURISDICTION!
HOW did the matter become "tainted"..... The President of the US
( Lyin Bastard Johnson) granted the FBI jurisdiction, by a
presidential order.
This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court of law
perspective.
I doubt it..... But the question is moot.....because the FACTS still
remained the same (facts don't change)
>
> What a WC shill he is.- Hide quoted text -
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No answers huh Walt you big dumbass? I keep posting those questions
to you and you cannot provide an alternate explanation that fits with
the evidence. You LOVE claiming Oswald didn't bring a rifle to work
with him but when given the microphone and spotlight you are unable to
provide an alternative explanation that agrees with the evidence.
You big dumbass.
Robert
> In article <7e7e83ef-72c4-41c5-a918-005200cb8...@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 3, 3:21=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <9acd43a0-bd3e-48d5-8aea-4fb064aac...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Robert says...
>
> >> >On Sep 1, 10:43=3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>
> >> >>http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Chang..=
> >.
>
> >> >The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
> >> >the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
> >> >JURISDICTION! =A0This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court
> >> >of law perspective.
>
> >> Untrue.
>
> >YOU are a liar Bendsie! When one turns over evidence, and in this
> >case the body, to those NOT in legal jurisdiction you ruin the CHAIN
> >OF CUSTODY! Do you even understand what this means? I doubt it as ALL
> >you WC shills and trolls lie about this part.
>
> Untrue. You will continue to refuse to cite for this...
It is common law, there is NO need to cite for it.
I will think about doing so however when YOU MAKE YOUR LOVER WALT DO
SO!
See, he shouldn't be allowed NEVER to cite and yet you constantly harp
on us to do so.
It is a law in terms of evidence. Ask Gil, he will tell you.
Walt
Not true, I provide an alternate explanation but you've got your head
so far up your ass that you can't see or hear.
But I'll try again....
A) The ONLY two witnesses who saw Oswald carry a paper sack that rainy
morning (Frazier and Randall) said the bag that Oswald carried was not
more than 28 inches long. They VERIFIED their estimates by using
known domensions as a scale. Randall said that Oswald had his arm
straigh down at his side and the bag cleared the ground by a couple of
inches. The distance from Oswald's palm to his ankle was about 28
inches.... Frazier said the sack covered about "X" of the rear seat of
his 53 Chevy ...The FBI measured "X" as specified by Frazier and found
the distance was 27 inches. Frazier said that Oswald cupped the sack
in his hand with the upper end of rthe sack tucked into his
armpit..... This distance was about 19 inches on Oswald.
Oswald told the interrogators that he carried his lunch in that sack.
These are the FACTS.... Whether you can see them depends on the
location of your head.
Robert
> On Sep 3, 2:43 pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 3, 12:49 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 3, 8:58 am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 1, 10:43 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>
> > > > >http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Chang...
>
> > > > The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
> > > > the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
> > > > JURISDICTION! This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court
> > > > of law perspective.
>
> > > > NO other one thing shows us more why LHO could NOT be allowed to make
> > > > it to a court of law than this!
>
> > > Get off this "legally acceptable" Bullshit....... we're not in
> > > court. Try using your head and commonsense.
>
> > SORRY WALLY THE TROLL BUT MURDER CASES ARE SOLVED IN COURT -- NOT THE
> > INTERNET! I know all LNers like you wish it were NOT true, but that
> > is the facts!
>
> That is the facts?...... If what you are attempting to say is
> true.... Doesn't the defendant have to be ambulatory and breathing in
> court?
> Are you saying that Oswald is still alive and can be brought to court?
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE WC SHILL! I guess LHO was the ONLY defendent in
Wally's mind, huh?
The point is there could have been NO trial against LHO as they ruined
the chain of custody for all the evidence and violated the law by NOT
allowing the autoposy to be done in Texas where the crime occured.
> > Does this mess up Wally's little game? Does his big ego NOT get
> > fulfilled if the case would have been thrown out of court?
>
> > Wally doesn't think we should discuss "legally acceptable" stuff in
> > regards to a murder!
>
> Not exactly stupid bastard..... but your whole idea is the product of
> a screwed mess of gray matter.....Didn't you write:..."The WHOLE point
> of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
> the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
> JURISDICTION!
Yes, and it was a the FBI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICITION AT THE TIME!
Now, I know that is a big word and has a part that sounds like the
male anatomy so you get sidetracked, but do look it up.
> HOW did the matter become "tainted"..... The President of the US
> ( Lyin Bastard Johnson) granted the FBI jurisdiction, by a
> presidential order.
THE FBI HAD NO JURISDICTION ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER, THUS WHEN THEY
TOOK THE EVIDENCE AND THE BODY THEY VIOLATED THE LAW. The defense
could have simply filed a motion banning every piece of evidence they
were give including the autopsy notes and diagrams.
I know this shatters your world, but that is the law.
It would be like the state of Illinois taking all the evidence from
the state of Caleeeefornia and then holding a trial in Caleeeefronia.
Good luck with that one.
> This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court of law
> perspective.
>
> I doubt it..... But the question is moot.....because the FACTS still
> remained the same (facts don't change)
Wally doubts the law!! THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THE LNER TROLLS
AND SHILLS ON HERE, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW OUR LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS.
As I have said before:
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Sep 3, 4:15=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <7e7e83ef-72c4-41c5-a918-005200cb8...@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>> >On Sep 3, 3:21=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <9acd43a0-bd3e-48d5-8aea-4fb064aac...@s31g2000yqs.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >On Sep 1, 10:43=3D3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>>
>g..=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
>> >> >the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
>urt
>> >> >of law perspective.
>>
>> >> Untrue.
>>
>> >YOU are a liar Bendsie! When one turns over evidence, and in this
>> >case the body, to those NOT in legal jurisdiction you ruin the CHAIN
>> >OF CUSTODY! Do you even understand what this means? I doubt it as ALL
>> >you WC shills and trolls lie about this part.
>>
>> Untrue. You will continue to refuse to cite for this...
>
>It is common law, there is NO need to cite for it.
If it were "common law", then it would be incredibly EASY to cite for it.
>I will think about doing so however when YOU MAKE YOUR LOVER WALT DO
>SO!
Walt can't save you.
>See, he shouldn't be allowed NEVER to cite and yet you constantly harp
>on us to do so.
What someone else does or does not do cannot explain *YOUR* failure to cite.
>It is a law in terms of evidence. Ask Gil, he will tell you.
No, it is not. I don't *want* anyone else to "tell me"... I want a citation.
You can't provide one.
You're lying.
Perhaps ignorantly, but you're lying just the same.
Evidence is FREQUENTLY "given" to the FBI by local authorities. The FBI has
laboratory & forensic capabilities that few PD's can match, if any.
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Sep 3, 4:31=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2:43=A0pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 3, 12:49=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Sep 3, 8:58=A0am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Sep 1, 10:43=A0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>>
>ang...
>>
>> > > > The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted wh=
>en
>> > > > the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
>urt
>> > > > of law perspective.
>>
>> > > > NO other one thing shows us more why LHO could NOT be allowed to ma=
>ke
>> > > > it to a court of law than this!
>>
>> > > court. =A0 Try using your head and commonsense.
>>
>> > SORRY WALLY THE TROLL BUT MURDER CASES ARE SOLVED IN COURT -- NOT THE
>> > is the facts!
>>
>> That is the facts?...... =A0If what you are attempting to say is
>> true.... Doesn't the defendant have to be ambulatory and breathing in
>> court?
>> Are you saying that Oswald is still alive and can be brought to court?
>
>SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE WC SHILL! I guess LHO was the ONLY defendent in
>Wally's mind, huh?
>
>The point is there could have been NO trial against LHO as they ruined
>the chain of custody for all the evidence and violated the law by NOT
>allowing the autoposy to be done in Texas where the crime occured.
>
>
>> > fulfilled if the case would have been thrown out of court?
>>
>> > Wally doesn't think we should discuss "legally acceptable" stuff in
>> > regards to a murder!
>>
>> Not exactly stupid bastard..... but your whole idea is the product of
>> a screwed mess of gray matter.....Didn't you write:..."The WHOLE point
>> of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
>> JURISDICTION!
>
>Yes, and it was a the FBI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICITION AT THE TIME!
>Now, I know that is a big word and has a part that sounds like the
>male anatomy so you get sidetracked, but do look it up.
>
>
>> HOW did the matter become "tainted"..... The President of the US
>> ( Lyin Bastard Johnson) granted the FBI jurisdiction, by a
>> presidential order.
>
>THE FBI HAD NO JURISDICTION ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER, THUS WHEN THEY
>TOOK THE EVIDENCE AND THE BODY THEY VIOLATED THE LAW. The defense
>could have simply filed a motion banning every piece of evidence they
>were give including the autopsy notes and diagrams.
>
>I know this shatters your world, but that is the law.
>
>It would be like the state of Illinois taking all the evidence from
>the state of Caleeeefornia and then holding a trial in Caleeeefronia.
>Good luck with that one.
>
>> This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court of law
>> perspective.
>>
>> I doubt it..... But the question is moot.....because the FACTS still
>> remained the same (facts don't change)
>
>Wally doubts the law!!
Actually, I rather suspect he "doubt's" what you *CLAIM* the law is.
And since you refuse to cite (indeed, aren't capable of citing) this mythical
"law", he's right to do so... particularly considering your track record.
>THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THE LNER TROLLS
>AND SHILLS ON HERE, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW OUR LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS.
Amusingly, *you* said this...
>As I have said before:
>
>> > What a WC shill he is.
Robert
> In article <175b6a69-85e0-470f-8c61-985923892...@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
It called chain of evidence and when you give it to someone NOT in the
"chain" you have violated the law.
When you make Walt cite for his claims I will be happy to do so as
well, but until then, I am through with your double standards.
> >I will think about doing so however when YOU MAKE YOUR LOVER WALT DO
> >SO!
>
> Walt can't save you.
OF course NOT, he is too busy with you in bed!
> >See, he shouldn't be allowed NEVER to cite and yet you constantly harp
> >on us to do so.
>
> What someone else does or does not do cannot explain *YOUR* failure to cite.
It is law Bendsie, even you can't lie your way out of this one. The
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO JURISDICTION WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN THE
EVIDENCE. Tis that simple.
> >It is a law in terms of evidence. Ask Gil, he will tell you.
>
> No, it is not. I don't *want* anyone else to "tell me"... I want a citation.
Well, I want them from your lover all the time but he never gives
them, and you don't call him out, instead you attack me.
NOW you will see how it feels.
> You can't provide one.
I can in a minute. Does this homo think I make this stuff up? IT is
a law you moron.
> You're lying.
YOU can easily prove I am by showing us how the evidence being taken
from the area of jurisdiction is NOT violated.
> Perhaps ignorantly, but you're lying just the same.
IF I thought I was wrong I would admit it, but everything I have read
legal wise over the years has said this is a clear violation of the
law.
The FBI had NO jurisdiction, thus they had NO RIGHTS TO CHAIN OF
CUSTODY!
> Evidence is FREQUENTLY "given" to the FBI by local authorities. The FBI has
> laboratory & forensic capabilities that few PD's can match, if any.
You are talking about two different things here. IF it is a federal
crime they have jurisdiction NO matter where it occured. Secondly,
under certain provisions the Feds can be asked in to consult, but they
can NEVER take your evidence without jurisdiction. I can see why you
would think differently as t.v. bends this line constantly.
The only exception I can think of is if the defense agrees to let the
Feds do a test because they have better equipment and it could lead to
showing thier client is innocent.
Robert
> In article <0e3ded90-e937-4451-b61b-26a1ac2a7...@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Does Wally have his mouth full and fingers busy with something esle?
I couldn't care less what you and Wally doubt, the assassination of a
president was NOT A FEDERAL CRIME IN 1963, thus the FBI had NO
jurisdiction in this crime.
The only way the FBI can get involve in crimes they do NOT have local
jurisdiction in is IF the criminal(s) cross state lines.
> And since you refuse to cite (indeed, aren't capable of citing) this mythical
> "law", he's right to do so... particularly considering your track record.
Wally NEVER cites, you have NO problem with that. How come? Instead
of citing let me use the method Wally uses!
YOU have to get your head out of your butt and think!!!!
> >THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THE LNER TROLLS
> >AND SHILLS ON HERE, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW OUR LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS.
>
> Amusingly, *you* said this...
YOU have NO clue or lie about. Who knows with a liar like you?
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Sep 3, 5:24=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <175b6a69-85e0-470f-8c61-985923892...@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>> >On Sep 3, 4:15=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <7e7e83ef-72c4-41c5-a918-005200cb8...@e11g2000yqo.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >> In article <9acd43a0-bd3e-48d5-8aea-4fb064aac...@s31g2000yqs.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Sep 1, 10:43=3D3D3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>>
>han=3D
>> >g..=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted w=
>hen
>> >> >> >the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
> a co=3D
>> >urt
>> >> >> >of law perspective.
>>
>> >> >> Untrue.
>>
>> >> >YOU are a liar Bendsie! When one turns over evidence, and in this
>> >> >case the body, to those NOT in legal jurisdiction you ruin the CHAIN
>> >> >OF CUSTODY! Do you even understand what this means? I doubt it as ALL
>> >> >you WC shills and trolls lie about this part.
>>
>> >> Untrue. You will continue to refuse to cite for this...
>>
>> >It is common law, there is NO need to cite for it.
>>
>> If it were "common law", then it would be incredibly EASY to cite for it.
>
>It called chain of evidence and when you give it to someone NOT in the
>"chain" you have violated the law.
Are you really *this* much of a moron?
The chain of custody includes ANYONE who possessed the item. There is no
'pre-determined' list of people who are "allowed" to have possession of
evidence.
>When you make Walt cite for his claims I will be happy to do so as
>well, but until then, I am through with your double standards.
Such reasoning excuses all of your faults, doesn't it?
>> >I will think about doing so however when YOU MAKE YOUR LOVER WALT DO
>> >SO!
>>
>> Walt can't save you.
>
>OF course NOT, he is too busy with you in bed!
Walt can't save you.
>> >See, he shouldn't be allowed NEVER to cite and yet you constantly harp
>> >on us to do so.
>>
>> What someone else does or does not do cannot explain *YOUR* failure to cite.
>
>It is law Bendsie,
No, it is not. You're lying again. You cannot cite this mythical "law". If
this *were* a law, it's being broken every single day by law enforcement
agencies in every state.
>even you can't lie your way out of this one. The
>FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO JURISDICTION WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN THE
>EVIDENCE. Tis that simple.
There's no law against it, and the evidence would certainly have been allowed in
court.
It's routinely done RIGHT NOW in every state in the Union.
>> >It is a law in terms of evidence. Ask Gil, he will tell you.
>>
>> No, it is not. I don't *want* anyone else to "tell me"... I want a citation.
>
>Well, I want them from your lover all the time but he never gives
>them, and you don't call him out, instead you attack me.
>
>NOW you will see how it feels.
Caught in a lie, and unable to defend it. Embarrassing, isn't it?
Why not merely provide the laws under which the FBI works, and let's *see* if
what they did is "illegal".
If you can't find such a list, I'll be happy to provide it.
>> You can't provide one.
>
>I can in a minute. Does this homo think I make this stuff up? IT is
>a law you moron.
You can't if I give you the same amount of time as I've given Toddy to find his
mythical refutation of the FBI intimidation post.
You're lying again. You CANNOT provide a cite to a "law" that doesn't exist.
>> You're lying.
>
>YOU can easily prove I am by showing us how the evidence being taken
>from the area of jurisdiction is NOT violated.
That's quite easy. I *ALREADY* pointed out that this is an ordinary common
occurrence. It's done each and every day, in police departments around the
country.
>> Perhaps ignorantly, but you're lying just the same.
>
>IF I thought I was wrong I would admit it,
This is why you're a moron.
>but everything I have read
>legal wise over the years has said this is a clear violation of the
>law.
Then the "law" is being violated virtually every day. As I've already pointed
out.
>The FBI had NO jurisdiction, thus they had NO RIGHTS TO CHAIN OF
>CUSTODY!
They have no "right" to the evidence that is sent to them everyday by PD's
around the country - but it apparently doesn't stop anyone.
>> Evidence is FREQUENTLY "given" to the FBI by local authorities. The FBI has
>> laboratory & forensic capabilities that few PD's can match, if any.
>
>You are talking about two different things here.
"Evidence" - Yes.
"Possession of that Evidence" - Yes.
"Evidence being taken 'from the area of jurisdiction'" - Yes.
Game over, stupid.
>IF it is a federal
>crime they have jurisdiction NO matter where it occured.
I'm *NOT* speaking of federal crimes, stupid.
>Secondly,
>under certain provisions the Feds can be asked in to consult, but they
>can NEVER take your evidence without jurisdiction.
Nonsense.
>I can see why you
>would think differently as t.v. bends this line constantly.
>
>The only exception I can think of is if the defense agrees to let the
>Feds do a test because they have better equipment and it could lead to
>showing thier client is innocent.
No stupid, the defense has no say in the matter. The local PD simply decides
that they don't have the forensic capability, or the laboratories, and they send
he evidence to the FBI Labs... it's DONE EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR!
You claim that such is against the law, yet you cannot cite any such mythical
law.
YOU'RE LYING!
Embarrassing, isn't it?
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Sep 3, 5:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <0e3ded90-e937-4451-b61b-26a1ac2a7...@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>> >On Sep 3, 4:31=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 3, 2:43=3DA0pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Sep 3, 12:49=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Sep 3, 8:58=3DA0am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Sep 1, 10:43=3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>>
>_Ch=3D
>> >ang...
>>
>> >> > > > The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted=
> wh=3D
>> >en
>> >> > > > the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
> a co=3D
>> >urt
>> >> > > > of law perspective.
>>
>> >> > > > NO other one thing shows us more why LHO could NOT be allowed to=
> ma=3D
>> >ke
>> >> > > > it to a court of law than this!
>>
>in
>> >> > > court. =3DA0 Try using your head and commonsense.
>>
>> >> > SORRY WALLY THE TROLL BUT MURDER CASES ARE SOLVED IN COURT -- NOT TH=
>E
>> >> > INTERNET! =3DA0I know all LNers like you wish it were NOT true, but =
>that
>> >> > is the facts!
>>
>> >> That is the facts?...... =3DA0If what you are attempting to say is
>> >> true.... Doesn't the defendant have to be ambulatory and breathing in
>> >> court?
>> >> Are you saying that Oswald is still alive and can be brought to court?
>>
>> >Wally's mind, huh?
>>
>> >The point is there could have been NO trial against LHO as they ruined
>> >the chain of custody for all the evidence and violated the law by NOT
>> >allowing the autoposy to be done in Texas where the crime occured.
>>
>> >> > fulfilled if the case would have been thrown out of court?
>>
>> >> > Wally doesn't think we should discuss "legally acceptable" stuff in
>> >> > regards to a murder!
>>
>> >> Not exactly stupid bastard..... but your whole idea is the product of
>> >> a screwed mess of gray matter.....Didn't you write:..."The WHOLE point
>> >> of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
>> >> JURISDICTION!
>>
>> >Yes, and it was a the FBI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICITION AT THE TIME!
>> >Now, I know that is a big word and has a part that sounds like the
>> >male anatomy so you get sidetracked, but do look it up.
>>
>> >> HOW did the matter become "tainted"..... The President of the US
>> >> ( Lyin Bastard Johnson) granted the FBI jurisdiction, by a
>> >> presidential order.
>>
>> >THE FBI HAD NO JURISDICTION ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER, THUS WHEN THEY
>> >could have simply filed a motion banning every piece of evidence they
>> >were give including the autopsy notes and diagrams.
>>
>> >I know this shatters your world, but that is the law.
>>
>> >It would be like the state of Illinois taking all the evidence from
>> >the state of Caleeeefornia and then holding a trial in Caleeeefronia.
>> >Good luck with that one.
>>
>> >> This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court of law
>> >> perspective.
>>
>> >> I doubt it..... But the question is moot.....because the FACTS still
>> >> remained the same (facts don't change)
>>
>> >Wally doubts the law!!
>>
>> Actually, I rather suspect he "doubt's" what you *CLAIM* the law is.
>
>Does Wally have his mouth full and fingers busy with something esle?
>
>I couldn't care less what you and Wally doubt, the assassination of a
>president was NOT A FEDERAL CRIME IN 1963, thus the FBI had NO
>jurisdiction in this crime.
Can you name what the FBI *DOES* have jurisdiction over?
>The only way the FBI can get involve in crimes they do NOT have local
>jurisdiction in is IF the criminal(s) cross state lines.
Untrue.
>> And since you refuse to cite (indeed, aren't capable of citing) this
>> mythical "law", he's right to do so... particularly considering your
>> track record.
>
>Wally NEVER cites, you have NO problem with that. How come? Instead
>of citing let me use the method Wally uses!
>
>YOU have to get your head out of your butt and think!!!!
Still no citation...
>> >THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THE LNER TROLLS
>> >AND SHILLS ON HERE, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW OUR LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS.
>>
>> Amusingly, *you* said this...
>
>YOU have NO clue or lie about. Who knows with a liar like you?
Actually, stupid, I do. I *can* cite, and my citations against your lack of
citations will win every single time.
You've been caught in another *stupid* lie... and now you can't defend it.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5123f203d3fe4fd0
>>> "It is not I who holds that the two conflicting but identical reports on the paper bag are for two different bags, one being for the original bag and one for the bag created 12-1, it is your hero Bugliosi. This is absolutely clear from reading my article, where I include his thoroughly inaccurate statements regarding this conflict, whereby he tries to pass off the two conflicting documents found by Shaw as references to two different bags. Take off your Bugliosi-colored glasses for a second, will ya? Your hero screwed up big time, and totally embarrassed himself. (Feel free to add this to your list of his mistakes.)" <<<
You're wrong, Pat. You'd better re-read "Reclaiming History" endnote
pages 405 and 406 again, because you couldn't be more wrong on this
point.
Bugliosi made no mistake on this issue at all. And the quoted passages
that YOU, Pat Speer, included in your 4/13/09 article at Mary
Ferrell's website confirm this:
Bugliosi fully acknowledges that the FBI obtained paper samples from
the Book Depository on TWO separate days (11/22/63 and 12/1/63), and
Vince is most certainly NOT contending (in the book excerpts reprinted
below) that the November 22 paper sample was utilized by the FBI to
create the replica bag. In fact, Vince never mentions the replica BAG
at all in these "RH" book excerpts:
"One version [of Vincent Drain's 11/29/63 FBI report] stated
that paper samples obtained from the Depository shipping area on
November 22 were found to have the same observable characteristics as
the brown paper bag recovered from the sixth-floor sniper’s nest. A
second version said that the paper samples were found “not to be
identical” with the paper gun sack discovered at the scene of the
shooting. ....
"The two documents are no doubt examples of a misunderstanding
that was cleared up by the Warren Commission in early 1964. In a March
12, 1964, letter [linked below], Warren Commission general counsel J.
Lee Rankin asked FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to settle the two
ostensibly contradictory FBI reports. Rankin wrote, “We are in doubt.
Please submit a report...as to the tests made and the conclusions
drawn.” ....
www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=745104
"A week later, on March 19 [in a letter to Rankin which can be
seen in CE2723, linked below], Hoover responded that BOTH reports were
correct. The first report, dated January 7, 1964, referred to samples
obtained from the Depository on December 1, 1963 (nine days after the
assassination). By then, the shipping department had replaced its roll
of wrapping paper with a fresh roll, since the fall period was its
“heavy shipping season.” Consequently, the samples obtained by the FBI
in December did not match the characteristics of the paper bag found
on the day of the shooting.
"The second report, dated January 13, 1964, related to samples
taken from the Depository on November 22, the day of the
assassination. These samples were found to be “similar in color to
[the bag recovered from the sixth floor]” and were “similar in
appearance under ultraviolet fluorescence, as well as in microscopic
and all other observable physical characteristics.”" -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Pages 405-406 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(©2007)
CE2723 (Page 1):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0069b.htm
CE2723 (Page 2):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0070a.htm
>>> "Your suggestion that the two conflicting reports are really not in conflict is ludicrous. While you and I might say that something is not identical, but shared the same observable characteristics, and not be contradicting ourselves..." <<<
Yes, exactly. So what's your problem now, Pat? (Let's see...)
>>> "...the FBI uses precise wording. "Found not to be identical" indicates that the two bags did not match. "Has the same observable characteristics" is FBI-speak for saying that their tests are not specific like fingerprints or DNA, but that from what they can determine the paper could be from the same source." <<<
LOL.
OIC! If it's you and I talking about the VERY SAME matter, we would
"not be contradicting ourselves", but if it's the "FBI" doing the
talking, it becomes "FBI-speak" and suddenly the exact same words mean
something that IS contradictory in nature.
Brilliant, Pat!
You're REALLY digging deep to try and save yourself from embarrassment
now, I see. Maybe you should stop right now, while we can still see
the top of your head.
BTW, you're wrong (again) when you keep trying to assert that the
"revised" language in the 11/29/63 Vincent Drain report is referring
to "the two bags". The November 29th report (BOTH versions) is
referring to a small piece of sample paper (which can be seen in
CE677) that was taken from the Depository on November 22 (not December
1).
The 11/29/63 document is most certainly NOT referring to the paper
sample that was used by the FBI to create the replica "bag", with the
replica bag being viewable in CE364.
CE677:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0180b.htm
CE364:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0492b.htm
Pat Speer still seems to think that CE677 and CE364 are the same
thing. And Pat evidently also wants to believe that CE677 and CE364
were obtained on the very same DAY too. But they weren't. So Pat is
wrong.
>>> "BTW, it is not MY subjective impression that the reports are in conflict, and that the first one was officially "inaccurate", it is the determination of the FBI. .... If "not identical" and "same observable characteristics" were just two ways of saying the same thing, don't you think Hoover would know this? Wouldn't Shanklin have known this? .... The FBI changed documents...after the fact...and kept no record of the changes, and made no notations on the documents indicating they'd been changed. Deal with it." <<<
Then how did we ever find out about the change, if no records were
kept of the change? Somebody kept the initial Drain document,
otherwise we wouldn't even know of its existence.
Which brings up another point -- If the FBI was so determined to HIDE
the initial "not identical" version of Vincent Drain's report, then
why in the world didn't they see to it that the original document with
the words "found not to be identical" on it was destroyed? Were they
too lazy to rip up a piece of paper?
In the final analysis, it's quite obvious (to everybody except rabid
conspiracy theorists who want the FBI to be involved in a "cover-up"
of some kind) that the FBI replaced a poorly-worded page of one report
with a more-accurately-worded page of that same report. And James
Cadigan's Warren Commission testimony confirms this as well.
In fact, Cadigan even went a step further than the "corrected" FBI/
Drain document, because Cadigan said that the 11/22/63 paper sample
(not the 12/1/63 sample, keep in mind) was, indeed, "identical" in
appearance to CE142 (the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest):
MR. EISENBERG -- "In all these cases, did you make the examination
both of the tape and the paper in each of the bag and the sample
[referring here to CE677, not CE364]?"
MR. CADIGAN -- "Oh, yes."
MR. EISENBERG -- "And they were all identical?"
MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes."
-----------------
RE: VINCENT DRAIN'S MEMORY CONCERNING THE TWO "CD5; PG. 129"
DOCUMENTS:
If FBI agent Vincent Drain was correct about what he said to Earl Golz
in 1980 (with Drain apparently telling Golz that the ORIGINAL document
was the version with the words "same observable characteristics" in
it, and that the version of his report which said "found not to be
identical" was a "fake"), then we are left to believe something that
is completely ridiculous on its face -- i.e., we're left to believe
that the FBI decided to create a fake version of the document, but
they then decided NOT TO USE that "fake" document in their final
report.
Via such a ludicrous scenario concerning the musical FBI reports, the
FBI decided that Drain's ORIGINAL version of the document (which
included the words "same observable characteristics") would then be
the FINAL and "official" version of that document after all.
So, if the commonly-held belief of many conspiracy theorists is
correct about how the FBI was attempting to paint Lee Harvey Oswald as
the sole assassin of President Kennedy, then why in the world would
the FBI have wanted to create a FAKE DOCUMENT which said that the
sample paper taken from the TSBD was "not identical" to that of the
paper bag that the same FBI has linked to Oswald? That makes
absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Vincent Drain's remarks to Earl Golz in 1980 only serve to demonstrate
that Mr. Drain's memory was almost certainly a bit fuzzy and faulty
when trying to recall the events from 17 years earlier.
I have no idea why Drain wrote "found not to be identical" in what was
quite obviously the "original" version of his 11/29/63 FBI report (and
is a conclusion that is completely the opposite of what the FBI's
James Cadigan told the Warren Commission about the 11/22/63 paper
sample).
I guess that's a mystery that will likely never be solved.
CLOSING NOTE FOR PAT SPEER:
You, Mr. Speer, are doing what all desperate conspiracy theorists do
every day of their lives -- you're reaching deep into the Chaff Pool
for ANY sign of "conspiracy" and/or "cover-up" that you can latch
onto. And, as usual, you end up looking silly when some common sense
is applied to your "findings" (just as Vincent Bugliosi makes you look
silly via the book excerpts I cited above).
You, of course, will pretend to not realize you're wrong regarding
this matter (probably because you spent a lot of time researching this
Jack White/Gary Shaw hunk of nonsense concerning the two different FBI
reports for your Mary Ferrell article).
And you, Pat, will also pretend to not realize that I'm right when I
corrected you about Vincent Bugliosi's comments on this topic -- i.e.,
you'll probably still say that Bugliosi was talking about the replica
BAG on pages 405 and 406 of "RH" endnotes, even though Vince doesn't
say the words "REPLICA BAG" or "RE-CREATED BAG" (or something similar)
one single time on those pages at all.
But regardless of your protestations, you will continue to be
incorrect on this matter, Pat.
Deal with it.
David Von Pein
September 3, 2009
Walt
The Stupid Bastard wrote:...."THE FBI HAD NO JURISDICTION ON THE NIGHT
OF THE MURDER, THUS WHEN THEY TOOK THE EVIDENCE AND THE BODY THEY
VIOLATED THE LAW."
This is a perfect example of your lack of knowledge..... The President
of the United States (Lyin Bastard Johnson) ordered the Dallas police
to turn the evidence over to the FBI, effective at midnight 11 / 22 /
63. What a stupid bastard!!....
Hey stupid....are you really so egotistical that you'll make
absolutely assnine statements, like this, because you lack the
integrity to admit that you are wrong?
There's no doubt that you are flat WRONG..... You
said ....Quote ....."WHEN THEY TOOK THE -------- BODY THEY VIOLATED
THE LAW."...unquote "Even the most ignorant LNer knows that the FBI
did NOT take JFK's body.
Now how are you going to lie your way outta this??
> > >I know this shatters your world, but that is the law.
>
> > >It would be like the state of Illinois taking all the evidence from
> > >the state of Caleeeefornia and then holding a trial in Caleeeefronia.
> > >Good luck with that one.
>
> > >> This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court of law
> > >> perspective.
>
> > >> I doubt it..... But the question is moot.....because the FACTS still
> > >> remained the same (facts don't change)
>
> > >Wally doubts the law!!
>
> > Actually, I rather suspect he "doubt's" what you *CLAIM* the law is.
>
> Does Wally have his mouth full and fingers busy with something esle?
>
> I couldn't care less what you and Wally doubt, the assassination of a
> president was NOT A FEDERAL CRIME IN 1963, thus the FBI had NO
> jurisdiction in this crime.
>
> The only way the FBI can get involve in crimes they do NOT have local
> jurisdiction in is IF the criminal(s) cross state lines.
>
> > And since you refuse to cite (indeed, aren't capable of citing) this mythical
> > "law", he's right to do so... particularly considering your track record.
>
> Wally NEVER cites, you have NO problem with that. How come? Instead
> of citing let me use the method Wally uses!
>
> YOU have to get your head out of your butt and think!!!!
>
> > >THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THE LNER TROLLS
> > >AND SHILLS ON HERE, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW OUR LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS.
>
> > Amusingly, *you* said this...
>
> YOU have NO clue or lie about. Who knows with a liar like you?- Hide quoted text -
Robert
> In article <a08638e3-2b82-4f57-8a9a-6f1cbc44b...@38g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
NO, but YOU are!
> The chain of custody includes ANYONE who possessed the item. There is no
> 'pre-determined' list of people who are "allowed" to have possession of
> evidence.
LOL!! This moron doesn't even understand the law! The "predetermined
list" is set BY JURISDICTION! IF you are not part of the jurisdiction
YOU have NO right handling evidence!
It is like buying a new car and seeing a dent, but NOT saying anything
at the time. YOU come back the next day and what do you think they
will tell you? That it happened AFTER you drove the car off the lot!
When you give evidence to folks who do NOT have jurisdiction you
VIOLATE the chain of custody!
Please do learn our legal system LNer troll!
> >When you make Walt cite for his claims I will be happy to do so as
> >well, but until then, I am through with your double standards.
>
> Such reasoning excuses all of your faults, doesn't it?
Hey, I'm trying to be FAIR UNLIKE YOU! IF I have to provide cites,
and everyone else you argue with has to provide them then your
soulmate needs to also.
> >> >I will think about doing so however when YOU MAKE YOUR LOVER WALT DO
> >> >SO!
>
> >> Walt can't save you.
>
> >OF course NOT, he is too busy with you in bed!
>
> Walt can't save you.
He is too busy with you to save anyone!
> >> >See, he shouldn't be allowed NEVER to cite and yet you constantly harp
> >> >on us to do so.
>
> >> What someone else does or does not do cannot explain *YOUR* failure to cite.
>
> >It is law Bendsie,
>
> No, it is not. You're lying again. You cannot cite this mythical "law". If
> this *were* a law, it's being broken every single day by law enforcement
> agencies in every state.
YOU are making yourself look very dumb (if that is possible, I have
suspected you are really a Marine trying to be a rocket scientist for
a long time now) as you have NO UNDERSTANDING OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.
But hey, hold your head up, NO LNer does!
> >even you can't lie your way out of this one. The
> >FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO JURISDICTION WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN THE
> >EVIDENCE. Tis that simple.
>
> There's no law against it, and the evidence would certainly have been allowed in
> court.
Liar, aren't you?
> It's routinely done RIGHT NOW in every state in the Union.
Liar, aren't you?
> >> >It is a law in terms of evidence. Ask Gil, he will tell you.
>
> >> No, it is not. I don't *want* anyone else to "tell me"... I want a citation.
>
> >Well, I want them from your lover all the time but he never gives
> >them, and you don't call him out, instead you attack me.
>
> >NOW you will see how it feels.
>
> Caught in a lie, and unable to defend it. Embarrassing, isn't it?
I am NOT lying "Boy Bendsie" as that is the law. YOU are lying to
claim it is not. Jruisdiction is the key to everything.
> Why not merely provide the laws under which the FBI works, and let's *see* if
> what they did is "illegal".
All I need to say is the assassination of a president was NOT a
federal crime in 1963! I can add the SS BROKE the law when they took
the body and the limo to D.C. when they Feds had NO jurisdiction.
Ditto the evidence the DPD gave them on 11/22 and 11/23. Look what
happened to that stuff too!
> If you can't find such a list, I'll be happy to provide it.
Provide whatever you want, but the TRUTH is the FBI had NO
juirisdiction UNTIL LBJ gave it to them, and when was that Bendsie?
By taking evidence when you have NO jurisdiction you BREAK THE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY! When the chain of custody is BROKEN you cannot have that
evidence ADMITTED TO COURT. I know this really hard for a WC shill
like you to cope with, but that is the law now and in 1963.
> >> You can't provide one.
>
> >I can in a minute. Does this homo think I make this stuff up? IT is
> >a law you moron.
>
> You can't if I give you the same amount of time as I've given Toddy to find his
> mythical refutation of the FBI intimidation post.
Look at the homo cry! Whine, whine, whine, that is all this pervert
does.
> You're lying again. You CANNOT provide a cite to a "law" that doesn't exist.
YOU are the liar as anyone who has really researched this case and
KNOWS THE US LEGAL SYSTEM knows I am right. I am NOT here to make
false claims like you and your "drinking buddy" do!
> >> You're lying.
>
> >YOU can easily prove I am by showing us how the evidence being taken
> >from the area of jurisdiction is NOT violated.
>
> That's quite easy. I *ALREADY* pointed out that this is an ordinary common
> occurrence. It's done each and every day, in police departments around the
> country.
See?? Bendsie is allowed to TELL US WITH NO CITES LIKE HIS LOVER
WALLY, BUT THE REST OF US HAVE TO PROVIDE CITES OR WE ARE LABLED A
LIAR!
What a rigged system, huh? I would get a more fair shake at some
"Mayberry" court probably.
> >> Perhaps ignorantly, but you're lying just the same.
>
> >IF I thought I was wrong I would admit it,
>
> This is why you're a moron.
Bendsie is a liar and a man obsessed with another man -- Wally -- to
the point he can't even think straight.
> >but everything I have read
> >legal wise over the years has said this is a clear violation of the
> >law.
>
> Then the "law" is being violated virtually every day. As I've already pointed
> out.
NO it isn't liar. THIS LAW IS FOLLOWED IN EVERY CASE BUT THE
ASSASSINATIONS FOR THE MOST PART AS IT WILL SINK YOUR CASE FASTER THAN
YOU GO DOWN ON WALLY!
WHY must these LNer Trolls lie constantly???
> >The FBI had NO jurisdiction, thus they had NO RIGHTS TO CHAIN OF
> >CUSTODY!
>
> They have no "right" to the evidence that is sent to them everyday by PD's
> around the country - but it apparently doesn't stop anyone.
IT is NOT sent UNLESS THEY HAVE JURISDICTION! Without jurisdiction it
is broken. Show us some local crimes that send evidence to the FBI
with NO federal jurisdiction in place.
> >> Evidence is FREQUENTLY "given" to the FBI by local authorities. The FBI has
> >> laboratory & forensic capabilities that few PD's can match, if any.
>
> >You are talking about two different things here.
>
> "Evidence" - Yes.
NO, you are talking about crimes that have a federal jurisdiction in
it.
> "Possession of that Evidence" - Yes.
>
> "Evidence being taken 'from the area of jurisdiction'" - Yes.
>
> Game over, stupid.
Bendsie, you are lying and comparing apples and oranges. The JFK
assassination had NO federal jurisdiction as it happened in the city
of Dallas and was NOT a federal crime. UNTIL LBJ gave the FBI
jurisdiction they had NO right to investigate or touch any evidence.
That is a MAJOR gaffe by the conspriators as they had Hoover get
involved too soon, and of course you are LYING TO HIDE THIS MISTAKE AS
USUAL!
Bendsie, like his lover and bedmate Wally, is a WC SHILL!
> >IF it is a federal
> >crime they have jurisdiction NO matter where it occured.
>
> I'm *NOT* speaking of federal crimes, stupid.
Then you are lying stupid. How would the FBI solve any of their own
crimes IF they took evidence for every local police force in the
country? How much equipment and manpower would they need for this???
Bendsie is unaware, or lying about (this is ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY WITH
THIS SERIAL LIAR), the fact that most local police forces and the Feds
hate each other and the locals will do anything to keep the Feds out.
The EXPANDING laws post 9/11 have given the Feds much more leeway than
was seen in 1963 to move in on local cases if they want. These laws
are open-ended in many cases and allow the Feds to claim "terrorists
are involved" and they can do whatever they want. This was NOT in
place in 1963.
Bendsie is comparing the post 9/11 take all your rights away country
to 1963 when killing a President was NOT even a federal crime.
He is lying as usual.
> >Secondly,
> >under certain provisions the Feds can be asked in to consult, but they
> >can NEVER take your evidence without jurisdiction.
>
> Nonsense.
The laws of the US usually are to all LNER TROLLS LIKE YOU!
> >I can see why you
> >would think differently as t.v. bends this line constantly.
>
> >The only exception I can think of is if the defense agrees to let the
> >Feds do a test because they have better equipment and it could lead to
> >showing thier client is innocent.
>
> No stupid, the defense has no say in the matter. The local PD simply decides
> that they don't have the forensic capability, or the laboratories, and they send
> he evidence to the FBI Labs... it's DONE EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR!
Then you can prove it, right? Show us how the FBI can handle evidence
with NO jurisdiction! I dare you!
But he won't.
> You claim that such is against the law, yet you cannot cite any such mythical
> law.
It is the LAW OF JURISDICTION! Why don't you learn about it! YOUR
claims of what happens "every day" is NOT official proof that this
does happen. YOU are giving an opinion, I am giving a law.
> YOU'RE LYING!
I would be lying ONLY IF I said you liked women sexually!
> Embarrassing, isn't it?
I would thinks so, but you have loved men and kids you WHOLE LIFE so
you rationalize for it!
Robert
> In article <8f1d970f-787d-4e3e-bf34-8cd966e54...@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Yes, and the list has gotten quite long after 9/11, but in 1963 they
had AUTOMATIC jurisdiction over any violation of a crime that was a
federal statute AND when a local crime when across state lines! Many
smart small time crooks stayed within a state to avoid the Feds in the
heyday of the 20's and 30's.
I.E. Bootlegging, bank robberies, etc...
> >The only way the FBI can get involve in crimes they do NOT have local
> >jurisdiction in is IF the criminal(s) cross state lines.
>
> Untrue.
Liar, aren't you? DO NOT use today's expanded laws due to "terrorism"
for 1963 crimes.
> >> And since you refuse to cite (indeed, aren't capable of citing) this
> >> mythical "law", he's right to do so... particularly considering your
> >> track record.
>
> >Wally NEVER cites, you have NO problem with that. How come? Instead
> >of citing let me use the method Wally uses!
>
> >YOU have to get your head out of your butt and think!!!!
>
> Still no citation...
See, this is what Wally does and YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT DESPITE
YOUR LIE THAT YOU "POINT IT OUT!"
> >> >THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THE LNER TROLLS
> >> >AND SHILLS ON HERE, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW OUR LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS.
>
> >> Amusingly, *you* said this...
>
> >YOU have NO clue or lie about. Who knows with a liar like you?
>
> Actually, stupid, I do. I *can* cite, and my citations against your lack of
> citations will win every single time.
Sure you can. Show us a cite that lets you take and handle evidence
when you have NO jurisdiction! I want it to be circa 1963 too, NOT in
the TERRORIST crazed times of today either.
> You've been caught in another *stupid* lie... and now you can't defend it.
YOU are the only liar and a bold one too as you claim an agency can
handle evidence with NO JURISDICTION!
Robert
Then "Ben's Butt Buddy" can show us he gave the FBI JURISDICTION on
11/22 too, right?
> Hey stupid....are you really so egotistical that you'll make
> absolutely assnine statements, like this, because you lack the
> integrity to admit that you are wrong?
YOU TWO ARE LYING AGAIN TO SAVE THE WC'S CASE! Will you two stop at
nothing to make it look like the WC was right?
Speaking of "a**inine" I heard tyhat is Bendsie's *PET* name for you
because he says he has your "a** NINE TIMES A NIGHT!"
> There's no doubt that you are flat WRONG..... You
> said ....Quote ....."WHEN THEY TOOK THE -------- BODY THEY VIOLATED
> THE LAW."...unquote "Even the most ignorant LNer knows that the FBI
> did NOT take JFK's body.
THEY BROKE THE LAW OF TEXAS YOU LYING WC SHILL! Lurkers -- this is
the same man who has just made excuses for why the SS was right to
WIPE UP THE LIMO WHEN IT WAS A CRIME SCENE!
> Now how are you going to lie your way outta this??
Since I am NOT the one lying, I don't have to worry about this one.
YOU and your lover need to go back to troll school and learn how to
lie better though.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Walt pointed out that the FBI did NOT take possession of JFK's body at
Parkland hospital or antwhere else.
walt wrote: " There's no doubt that you are flat WRONG..... You
said ....Quote ....."WHEN THEY TOOK THE -------- BODY THEY VIOLATED
THE LAW."...unquote "Even the most ignorant LNer knows that the FBI
did NOT take JFK's body.
Then the stupid Bastard whined:........ "THEY BROKE THE LAW OF TEXAS
YOU LYING WC SHILL! "
Now I'm forced to repeat that you are flat WRONG .... THE FBI DID NOT
TAKE JFK'S BODY!
Why don't you just admit that you made a STUPID statement and
apologize??
David Von Pein
>>> "The original version of the 11-29 document was not discovered until 1977." <<<
Right. But the SECOND conflict (the one that arose in January 1964),
as another poster ("ShutterBun") has rightly pointed out, goes to the
EXACT SAME CONFLICT as the first conflict (with the first conflict,
chronologically, being the Vincent Drain documents dated 11/29/63).
It's the exact same discrepancy -- i.e., it's a conflict which raises
the question that J. Lee Rankin and the Warren Commission wanted
cleared up by the FBI in March 1964: DID CE142 GENERALLY MATCH OR NOT
MATCH THE TWO SEPARATE PAPER SAMPLES?
And Vincent Bugliosi is obviously talking about the FIRST discrepancy
when he uses the exact verbiage from Drain's original (inaccurate)
version -- "not to be identical".
Yes, Mr. Bugliosi then does switch to talking about the January 7 and
January 13 version of the conflict. But it's really ALL THE SAME
THING, which (as VB rightly points out) was cleared up via CE2723 (J.
Edgar Hoover's letter to the WC):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0069b.htm
You, Pat, probably think that Vince Bugliosi was not being totally
above-board and honest because Vince didn't say something like I said
in my last post...right, Pat?
You think Vince should have said something akin to this:
"I have no idea why [Vincent] Drain wrote "found not to be
identical" in what was quite obviously the "original" version of his
11/29/63 FBI report (and is a conclusion that is completely the
opposite of what the FBI's James Cadigan told the Warren Commission
about the 11/22/63 paper sample). I guess that's a mystery that will
likely never be solved." -- DVP; 09/03/09
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1114cd384b8d3d72
Well, you're right, Bugliosi didn't say anything like that on endnote
pages 405 and 406 of "Reclaiming History". So, if you want to call Mr.
Bugliosi a liar and a cheat for not having done so--go ahead.
But in the FINAL ANALYSIS when examining this issue concerning the two
conflicting FBI reports relating to the paper samples and CE142 (the
Sniper's-Nest paper bag), Vincent Bugliosi, in my opinion, cleared up
the "mystery" very nicely. YMMV.
And, BTW Pat, you're still wrong because you seem to think that
Bugliosi was talking ONLY about the second FBI paper sample (the
12/1/63 sample) during VB's entire endnote on pages 405 and 406 of his
book. But he was most certainly talking about the TWO different FBI
paper samples in that endnote.
David Von Pein
September 4, 2009
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Sep 3, 6:27=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <a08638e3-2b82-4f57-8a9a-6f1cbc44b...@38g2000yqr.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>> >On Sep 3, 5:24=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <175b6a69-85e0-470f-8c61-985923892...@w36g2000yqm.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >> In article <7e7e83ef-72c4-41c5-a918-005200cb8...@e11g2000yqo.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> Robert says...
>>
>te:
>> >> >> >> In article <9acd43a0-bd3e-48d5-8aea-4fb064aac...@s31g2000yqs.goo=
>gle=3D
>> >gro=3D3D
>> >> >ups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Sep 1, 10:43=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote=
>:
>> >> >> >> >> An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>>
>I_C=3D
>> >han=3D3D
>> >> >g..=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> >The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainte=
>d w=3D
>> >hen
>> >> >> >> >the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
> from=3D
>> > a co=3D3D
>> >> >urt
>> >> >> >> >of law perspective.
>>
>> >> >> >> Untrue.
>>
>> >> >> >YOU are a liar Bendsie! When one turns over evidence, and in this
>IN
>> >> >> >OF CUSTODY! Do you even understand what this means? I doubt it as =
>ALL
>> >> >> >you WC shills and trolls lie about this part.
>>
>> >> >> Untrue. You will continue to refuse to cite for this...
>>
>> >> >It is common law, there is NO need to cite for it.
>>
>it.
>>
>> >It called chain of evidence and when you give it to someone NOT in the
>> >"chain" you have violated the law.
>>
>> Are you really *this* much of a moron?
>
>NO, but YOU are!
>
>> The chain of custody includes ANYONE who possessed the item. There is no
>> 'pre-determined' list of people who are "allowed" to have possession of
>> evidence.
>
>LOL!! This moron doesn't even understand the law! The "predetermined
>list" is set BY JURISDICTION!
Then you should be able to cite for such an assertion.
But not only can you *NOT*, you won't even try.
For anyone who doesn't understand the legal definition of "chain of custody",
here's merely one citation:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chain+of+Custody
>IF you are not part of the jurisdiction
>YOU have NO right handling evidence!
You're a liar, Robsie. Nor does your assertion even make sense.
>It is like buying a new car and seeing a dent, but NOT saying anything
>at the time. YOU come back the next day and what do you think they
>will tell you? That it happened AFTER you drove the car off the lot!
>When you give evidence to folks who do NOT have jurisdiction you
>VIOLATE the chain of custody!
This has nothing to do with "chain of custody".
>Please do learn our legal system LNer troll!
Indeed, I apparently know much more about it than you do. *MY* definition of
"chain of custody" is identical with the legal definition I cited.
You will *REFUSE* to cite, since no citation is possible that supports your
silly ideas.
>> >When you make Walt cite for his claims I will be happy to do so as
>> >well, but until then, I am through with your double standards.
>>
>> Such reasoning excuses all of your faults, doesn't it?
>
>Hey, I'm trying to be FAIR UNLIKE YOU! IF I have to provide cites,
>and everyone else you argue with has to provide them then your
>soulmate needs to also.
Walt has nothing to do with you refusing to provide a citation for something you
asserted to me.
>> >> >I will think about doing so however when YOU MAKE YOUR LOVER WALT DO
>> >> >SO!
>>
>> >> Walt can't save you.
>>
>> >OF course NOT, he is too busy with you in bed!
>>
>> Walt can't save you.
>
>He is too busy with you to save anyone!
Walt can't save you.
>> >> >See, he shouldn't be allowed NEVER to cite and yet you constantly har=
>p
>> >> >on us to do so.
>>
>> >> What someone else does or does not do cannot explain *YOUR* failure to=
> cite.
>>
>> >It is law Bendsie,
>>
>> No, it is not. You're lying again. You cannot cite this mythical "law".
>> If this *were* a law, it's being broken every single day by law enforcement
>> agencies in every state.
>
>YOU are making yourself look very dumb (if that is possible, I have
>suspected you are really a Marine trying to be a rocket scientist for
>a long time now) as you have NO UNDERSTANDING OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.
>But hey, hold your head up, NO LNer does!
The *FACT* that local PD's send evidence to the FBI routinely demonstrates that
you're "understanding" is a joke.
>> >even you can't lie your way out of this one. =A0The
>> >FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO JURISDICTION WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN THE
>> >EVIDENCE. =A0Tis that simple.
>>
>> There's no law against it, and the evidence would certainly have been
>> allowed in court.
>
>Liar, aren't you?
I'm not the one unable to cite for my opinion.
>> It's routinely done RIGHT NOW in every state in the Union.
>
>Liar, aren't you?
Ignorant, aren't you?
>> >> >It is a law in terms of evidence. Ask Gil, he will tell you.
>>
>> >> No, it is not. I don't *want* anyone else to "tell me"... I want a cit=
>ation.
>>
>> >Well, I want them from your lover all the time but he never gives
>> >them, and you don't call him out, instead you attack me.
>>
>> >NOW you will see how it feels.
>>
>> Caught in a lie, and unable to defend it. Embarrassing, isn't it?
>
>I am NOT lying "Boy Bendsie" as that is the law. YOU are lying to
>claim it is not. Jruisdiction is the key to everything.
Caught in a lie, and unable to defend it. Embarrassing, isn't it? No citation
possible, and you're running like a scared cat.
>> Why not merely provide the laws under which the FBI works, and let's *see* if
>> what they did is "illegal".
>
>All I need to say is the assassination of a president was NOT a
>federal crime in 1963!
So you're asserting that the FBI has jurisdiction *ONLY* over "federal" crimes?
When you answer, be sure to cite.
>I can add the SS BROKE the law when they took
>the body and the limo to D.C. when they Feds had NO jurisdiction.
Yes... they did.
>Ditto the evidence the DPD gave them on 11/22 and 11/23. Look what
>happened to that stuff too!
The "evidence" broke the law too? What law did the "evidence" break?
>> If you can't find such a list, I'll be happy to provide it.
>
>Provide whatever you want, but the TRUTH is the FBI had NO
>juirisdiction UNTIL LBJ gave it to them, and when was that Bendsie?
>
>By taking evidence when you have NO jurisdiction you BREAK THE CHAIN
>OF CUSTODY!
No you don't.
>When the chain of custody is BROKEN you cannot have that
>evidence ADMITTED TO COURT. I know this really hard for a WC shill
>like you to cope with, but that is the law now and in 1963.
You can't cite this mythical law. That makes you a liar.
>> >> You can't provide one.
>>
>> >I can in a minute. Does this homo think I make this stuff up? IT is
>> >a law you moron.
>>
>> You can't if I give you the same amount of time as I've given Toddy to
>> find his mythical refutation of the FBI intimidation post.
>
>Look at the homo cry! Whine, whine, whine, that is all this pervert
>does.
You lied when you claimed you could cite "in a minute", you lied when you even
*STATED* that you could cite for this stupid and incorrect assertion.
"Jurisdiction" has *NOTHING* to do with the chain of custody.
>> You're lying again. You CANNOT provide a cite to a "law" that doesn't exist.
>
>YOU are the liar as anyone who has really researched this case and
>KNOWS THE US LEGAL SYSTEM knows I am right. I am NOT here to make
>false claims like you and your "drinking buddy" do!
Where's the legion of lurkers who believe that you are right? Can you name a
*SINGLE ONE*?
You cannot cite for your silly and incorrect assertions about the law, and all
you're doing is demonstrating once again (as if it were needed), your stupidity.
>> >> You're lying.
>>
>> >YOU can easily prove I am by showing us how the evidence being taken
>> >from the area of jurisdiction is NOT violated.
>>
>> That's quite easy. I *ALREADY* pointed out that this is an ordinary common
>> occurrence. It's done each and every day, in police departments around the
>> country.
>
>See?? Bendsie is allowed to TELL US WITH NO CITES LIKE HIS LOVER
>WALLY, BUT THE REST OF US HAVE TO PROVIDE CITES OR WE ARE LABLED A
>LIAR!
I'm not the one trying to tell people what the law is.
>What a rigged system, huh? I would get a more fair shake at some
>"Mayberry" court probably.
You need a cite for my assertion that local PD's send evidence routinely to FBI
labs? Here's one of many: http://science.howstuffworks.com/csi5.htm
Now, plan to cite for your lie about the law?
>> >> Perhaps ignorantly, but you're lying just the same.
>>
>> >IF I thought I was wrong I would admit it,
>>
>> This is why you're a moron.
>
>Bendsie is a liar and a man obsessed with another man -- Wally -- to
>the point he can't even think straight.
*This* is why you're a moron.
>> >but everything I have read
>> >legal wise over the years has said this is a clear violation of the
>> >law.
>>
>> Then the "law" is being violated virtually every day. As I've already pointed
>> out.
>
>NO it isn't liar. THIS LAW IS FOLLOWED IN EVERY CASE
*WHAT* law, moron? Cite it.
>BUT THE
>ASSASSINATIONS FOR THE MOST PART AS IT WILL SINK YOUR CASE FASTER THAN
>YOU GO DOWN ON WALLY!
>
>WHY must these LNer Trolls lie constantly???
It would be incredibly easy to prove I'm "lying", simply cite the law.
But you can't... it doesn't exist.
>> >The FBI had NO jurisdiction, thus they had NO RIGHTS TO CHAIN OF
>> >CUSTODY!
>>
>> They have no "right" to the evidence that is sent to them everyday by PD's
>> around the country - but it apparently doesn't stop anyone.
>
>IT is NOT sent UNLESS THEY HAVE JURISDICTION!
Untrue.
>Without jurisdiction it
>is broken.
*WHAT* is "broken"? Can you cite for this? (The answer, of course, is "no")
>Show us some local crimes that send evidence to the FBI
>with NO federal jurisdiction in place.
Feel free to educate yourself: http://www.fbi.gov/lawenforce.htm
>> >> Evidence is FREQUENTLY "given" to the FBI by local authorities. The
>> >> FBI has laboratory & forensic capabilities that few PD's can match,
>> >> if any.
>>
>> >You are talking about two different things here.
>>
>> "Evidence" - Yes.
>
>NO, you are talking about crimes that have a federal jurisdiction in
>it.
Am I speaking of "Evidence" - Yes.
>> "Possession of that Evidence" - Yes.
>>
>> "Evidence being taken 'from the area of jurisdiction'" - Yes.
>>
>> Game over, stupid.
>
>Bendsie, you are lying and comparing apples and oranges.
Evidence? Yes
Possession of that Evidence? Yes
Evidence taken 'from the area of jurisdiction'? Yes.
>The JFK
>assassination had NO federal jurisdiction as it happened in the city
>of Dallas and was NOT a federal crime.
And you believe that the FBI only has jurisdiction over "federal" crime?
>UNTIL LBJ gave the FBI
>jurisdiction they had NO right to investigate or touch any evidence.
Untrue.
>That is a MAJOR gaffe by the conspriators as they had Hoover get
>involved too soon, and of course you are LYING TO HIDE THIS MISTAKE AS
>USUAL!
>
>Bendsie, like his lover and bedmate Wally, is a WC SHILL!
Walt can't save you.
>> >IF it is a federal
>> >crime they have jurisdiction NO matter where it occured.
>>
>> I'm *NOT* speaking of federal crimes, stupid.
>
>Then you are lying stupid. How would the FBI solve any of their own
>crimes IF they took evidence for every local police force in the
>country? How much equipment and manpower would they need for this???
It's merely a fact that they do this. Do try to educate yourself before looking
even more stupid than normal. The information is available on the net, and has
been featured many times on 'crime shows' on T.V.
>Bendsie is unaware, or lying about (this is ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY WITH
>THIS SERIAL LIAR), the fact that most local police forces and the Feds
>hate each other and the locals will do anything to keep the Feds out.
>The EXPANDING laws post 9/11 have given the Feds much more leeway than
>was seen in 1963 to move in on local cases if they want. These laws
>are open-ended in many cases and allow the Feds to claim "terrorists
>are involved" and they can do whatever they want. This was NOT in
>place in 1963.
>
>Bendsie is comparing the post 9/11 take all your rights away country
>to 1963 when killing a President was NOT even a federal crime.
>
>He is lying as usual.
And yet, I'm citing, and you can't.
Why is that, stupid?
>> >Secondly,
>> >under certain provisions the Feds can be asked in to consult, but they
>> >can NEVER take your evidence without jurisdiction.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
>The laws of the US usually are to all LNER TROLLS LIKE YOU!
Why not simply cite it, moron?
>> >I can see why you
>> >would think differently as t.v. bends this line constantly.
>>
>> >The only exception I can think of is if the defense agrees to let the
>> >Feds do a test because they have better equipment and it could lead to
>> >showing thier client is innocent.
>>
>> No stupid, the defense has no say in the matter. The local PD simply
>> decides that they don't have the forensic capability, or the laboratories,
>> and they send he evidence to the FBI Labs... it's DONE EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR!
>
>Then you can prove it, right? Show us how the FBI can handle evidence
>with NO jurisdiction! I dare you!
>
>But he won't.
I've provided the cites above.
>> You claim that such is against the law, yet you cannot cite any such
>> mythical law.
>
>It is the LAW OF JURISDICTION!
You mean like this: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction
>Why don't you learn about it! YOUR
>claims of what happens "every day" is NOT official proof that this
>does happen. YOU are giving an opinion, I am giving a law.
You're giving your moronic opinion... you aren't giving the law. If you WERE
giving the law, you could instantly cite it.
>> YOU'RE LYING!
>
>I would be lying ONLY IF I said you liked women sexually!
Perverted, aren't you?
>> Embarrassing, isn't it?
>
>I would thinks so, but you have loved men and kids you WHOLE LIFE so
>you rationalize for it!
Jesus is a man, and he loved children also...
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Sep 3, 6:31=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <8f1d970f-787d-4e3e-bf34-8cd966e54...@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>> >On Sep 3, 5:28=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <0e3ded90-e937-4451-b61b-26a1ac2a7...@w36g2000yqm.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >On Sep 3, 4:31=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sep 3, 2:43=3D3DA0pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Sep 3, 12:49=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Sep 3, 8:58=3D3DA0am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > On Sep 1, 10:43=3D3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > > An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>>
>FBI=3D
>> >_Ch=3D3D
>> >> >ang...
>>
>> >> >> > > > The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tain=
>ted=3D
>> > wh=3D3D
>> >> >en
>> >> >> > > > the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
> from=3D
>> > a co=3D3D
>> >> >urt
>> >> >> > > > of law perspective.
>>
>> >> >> > > > NO other one thing shows us more why LHO could NOT be allowed=
> to=3D
>> > ma=3D3D
>> >> >ke
>> >> >> > > > it to a court of law than this!
>>
> not =3D
>> >in
>> >> >> > > court. =3D3DA0 Try using your head and commonsense.
>>
>> >> >> > SORRY WALLY THE TROLL BUT MURDER CASES ARE SOLVED IN COURT -- NOT=
> TH=3D
>> >E
>> >> >> > INTERNET! =3D3DA0I know all LNers like you wish it were NOT true,=
> but =3D
>> >that
>> >> >> > is the facts!
>>
>> >> >> That is the facts?...... =3D3DA0If what you are attempting to say i=
>s
>> >> >> true.... Doesn't the defendant have to be ambulatory and breathing =
>in
>> >> >> court?
>> >> >> Are you saying that Oswald is still alive and can be brought to cou=
>rt?
>>
>> >> >SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE WC SHILL! =3DA0I guess LHO was the ONLY defendent =
>in
>> >> >Wally's mind, huh?
>>
>d
>> >> >the chain of custody for all the evidence and violated the law by NOT
>> >> >allowing the autoposy to be done in Texas where the crime occured.
>>
>T get
>> >> >> > fulfilled if the case would have been thrown out of court?
>>
>in
>> >> >> > regards to a murder!
>>
>of
>> >> >> a screwed mess of gray matter.....Didn't you write:..."The WHOLE po=
>int
>> >> >> of the matter is ALL the evidence became tainted when
>> >> >> JURISDICTION!
>>
>> >> >Yes, and it was a the FBI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICITION AT THE TIME!
>> >> >Now, I know that is a big word and has a part that sounds like the
>> >> >male anatomy so you get sidetracked, but do look it up.
>>
>> >> >> HOW did the matter become "tainted"..... The President of the US
>> >> >> ( Lyin Bastard Johnson) granted the FBI jurisdiction, by a
>> >> >> presidential order.
>>
>Y
>> >> >TOOK THE EVIDENCE AND THE BODY THEY VIOLATED THE LAW. =3DA0The defens=
>e
>> >> >could have simply filed a motion banning every piece of evidence they
>> >> >were give including the autopsy notes and diagrams.
>>
>> >> >I know this shatters your world, but that is the law.
>>
>> >> >It would be like the state of Illinois taking all the evidence from
>> >> >the state of Caleeeefornia and then holding a trial in Caleeeefronia.
>> >> >Good luck with that one.
>>
>> >> >> This in effect NULL AND VOIDED all of it from a court of law
>> >> >> perspective.
>>
>l
>> >> >> remained the same (facts don't change)
>>
>> >> >Wally doubts the law!!
>>
>> >> Actually, I rather suspect he "doubt's" what you *CLAIM* the law is.
>>
>> >Does Wally have his mouth full and fingers busy with something esle?
>>
>> >I couldn't care less what you and Wally doubt, the assassination of a
>> >president was NOT A FEDERAL CRIME IN 1963, thus the FBI had NO
>> >jurisdiction in this crime.
>>
>> Can you name what the FBI *DOES* have jurisdiction over?
>
>Yes, and the list has gotten quite long after 9/11, but in 1963 they
>had AUTOMATIC jurisdiction over any violation of a crime that was a
>federal statute AND when a local crime when across state lines! Many
>smart small time crooks stayed within a state to avoid the Feds in the
>heyday of the 20's and 30's.
>
>I.E. Bootlegging, bank robberies, etc...
No cite, I see.
Lurkers may want to look up Title 18, United States Code, Section 3052. It's
proof that Robsie is a moron.
>> >The only way the FBI can get involve in crimes they do NOT have local
>> >jurisdiction in is IF the criminal(s) cross state lines.
>>
>> Untrue.
>
>Liar, aren't you? DO NOT use today's expanded laws due to "terrorism"
>for 1963 crimes.
I say again, untrue. And I can cite for it, unlike you, stupid.
You can take a look at Title 18, section 3052. The last amendment that is
applicable occurred in 1951.
>> >> And since you refuse to cite (indeed, aren't capable of citing) this
>> >> mythical "law", he's right to do so... particularly considering your
>> >> track record.
>>
>> >Wally NEVER cites, you have NO problem with that. =A0How come? =A0Instea=
>d
>> >of citing let me use the method Wally uses!
>>
>> >YOU have to get your head out of your butt and think!!!!
>>
>> Still no citation...
>
>See, this is what Wally does and YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT DESPITE
>YOUR LIE THAT YOU "POINT IT OUT!"
Walt can't save you... Still no citation...
>> >> >THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THE LNER TROLLS
>> >> >AND SHILLS ON HERE, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW OUR LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS.
>>
>> >> Amusingly, *you* said this...
>>
>> >YOU have NO clue or lie about. Who knows with a liar like you?
>>
>> Actually, stupid, I do. I *can* cite, and my citations against your lack of
>> citations will win every single time.
>
>Sure you can. Show us a cite that lets you take and handle evidence
>when you have NO jurisdiction!
Jurisdiction has *nothing* to do with chain of custody.
The FBI routinely handles evidence that it has no "jurisdiction" over.
>I want it to be circa 1963 too, NOT in
>the TERRORIST crazed times of today either.
The FBI has been handling lab work for local PD's since the 1930's, I believe it
was.
>> You've been caught in another *stupid* lie... and now you can't defend it.
>
>YOU are the only liar and a bold one too as you claim an agency can
>handle evidence with NO JURISDICTION!
I've cited for it. You're whining and running...
Embarrassing, is it not?
David Von Pein
>>> "Bugliosi responded by claiming this had something to do with two SEPARATE TESTS performed on two SEPARATE bags. He screwed up, however. One of the two SEPARATE tests was not performed until AFTER the document discussed by White had been written. It follows that any confusion related to the test of the 12-1 paper sample had NOTHING to do with there being two versions of the SAME 11-29 document." <<<
You just refuse to read Vincent Bugliosi's comments correctly.
Incredibly, Pat Speer still seems to think that Bugliosi is talking
ONLY about the 12/1/63 FBI paper sample. But, of course, he's not
talking ONLY about that sample. He's talking about BOTH the 11/22/63
paper sample and the 12/1/63 sample, which is really the entire point
in the first place -- i.e., there were TWO separate samples of paper
obtained from the TSBD by the FBI which caused confusion, with one of
these samples (the one obtained on 11/22/63) matching Oswald's paper
sack, and the other sample (taken from the Depository later, on
12/1/63, in order to create a replica bag) not matching Oswald's bag
due to the fact the roll of paper in the TSBD had been changed since
the day of the assassination.
And Hoover's letter to the Warren Commission in CE2723 clears up BOTH
"versions" of the conflict. CE2723, in my opinion, clears up the
11/29/63 "Drain document" conflict; and CE2723 also clears up the
conflict that was sparked by the January 7th and January 13th reports.
CE2723:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0069b.htm
ADDENDUM:
It's also worth noting that on page 4 of a letter (linked below) from
J. Edgar Hoover to Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry (which is a letter
dated NOVEMBER 23, 1963, six days before Vincent Drain filed his
report), Hoover said the following to Chief Curry:
"The paper of the wrapping and the tape, Q10 [the bag found in
the Sniper's Nest], were found to have the same observable physical
characteristics as the known wrapping paper and tape, K2 [the sample
taken from the TSBD on 11/22/63], from the Texas Public School Book
Depository."
Here's page 4 of the letter in question:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1420-004.gif
And here's page 1 of the letter (which shows the date: "November 23,
1963"):
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1420-001.gif
So, unless some CTers want to believe that Hoover's 11/23/63 letter to
Curry is a fake, then we have the proof in writing--SIX DAYS PRIOR TO
VINCENT DRAIN'S NOVEMBER 29TH REPORT--that the 11/22/63 paper sample
had the "same observable physical characteristics" as the paper bag
found on the sixth floor (CE142).
==============================================
MOUNTAINS FROM MOLEHILLS (PARTS 1, 2, AND 3):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fabc4a8e3183d717
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c481188f151a81f1
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2f7bd35dd260dd82
==============================================
Walt
Here's what you wrote on Sept 3 at 4:09pm.......
"THE FBI HAD NO JURISDICTION ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER, THUS WHEN
THEY TOOK THE EVIDENCE AND THE BODY THEY VIOLATED THE LAW. "..Rob
Caprio
Now all you have to do is provide proof that the FBI took JFK's
body... And I'll acknowledge that my belief that the FBI did NOT take
JFK's body is wrong.
However... If you can't provide the documentation to back up your
claim....the It's your responsiblity to acknowledge that you're stupid
and made a stupid statement.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d077597989b31225
See my addendum linked above, Pat. It drives a stake through the idea
that the "corrected" Drain report was a deliberate intent to deceive.
Hoover told Curry on 11/23/63 that the 11/22 paper sample matched
Oswald's rifle sack, which is exactly what Vince Drain SHOULD have
written in his original 11/29 report. Since he didn't write that, a
correction was needed.
Do you disagree with my above paragraph, Pat?
David Von Pein
>>> "Yes, it seems obvious that, IF Drains' first report was correct, and that the paper bag and sample did not match, then Hoover's letter to Curry was a misrepresentation. This would suggest as well that the decision to misrepresent the evidence took place before Hoover's letter was written." <<<
Which means the FBI had already decided to "misrepresent the evidence"
within literally hours of the assassination (since the assassination
took place at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22, and Hoover's letter to Curry was
sent sometime on 11/23).
Hoover's boys worked fast, didn't they Pat? And while Oswald was still
among the living too, keep in mind.
Walt
Von Pea Brain wrote:..."Hoover told Curry on 11/23/63 that the 11/22
paper sample matched Oswald's rifle sack,"
Hey Pea Brain..... What do you mean ..."Oswald's rifle sack"??....
That FBI report makes it abundantly clear top anybody with a ounce of
integrity and commonsense, that They ( The FBI ) Could NOT....
NOT...find any evidence that that rifle had ever been in that bag. I
know it's difficult to see that when you have your head up your ass,
but it is a FACT, that the FBI report provides NO confirmation for
many of your cherished imaginary beliefs.
Robert
The SS took it and it does NOT matter who did as the law of Texas
called for an autopsy to be done in that state WHERE THE CRIME
OCCURED! That is part of the chain of custody you lying WC shill!
> Then the stupid Bastard whined:........ "THEY BROKE THE LAW OF TEXAS
> YOU LYING WC SHILL! "
>
> Now I'm forced to repeat that you are flat WRONG .... THE FBI DID NOT
> TAKE JFK'S BODY!
The SS did you LYING WC shill and they violated the law of the state
of Texas. This pathetic troll knows he can't argue that part so he is
trying to distract with games again. Game playing is typical troll
behavior.
> Why don't you just admit that you made a STUPID statement and
> apologize??
Why don't you take it up the A** for a TENTH time tonight???? Why
don't you show me saying the FBI took the body WaltCon? I sid "they"
in the quote you gave us and I mentioned the FBI in regards to the
evidence -- NOT THE BODY!
Wally the Shill is left with more lying to save himself.
Robert
> In article <f00df803-0006-4fa6-8052-f7ba0db12...@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
I don't cite for the truth. NOW, tell us which DPD officer went to
D.C. to maintain the chain of custody since the FBI had NO
jurisdicition. Tell us when LBJ gave them jurisdiction Boy Bendsie!
> But not only can you *NOT*, you won't even try.
I don't have to cite for the LAW WC troll! The law in 1963 made the
murder of JFK a STATE and local crime, NOT a federal one! The FBI had
NO juridiction UNTIL LBJ gave it to them, thus they could NOT handle
evidence without the proper DPD officers being there!
Tell us which DPD officer(s) went to D.C on 11/22-11/23/63 Boy
Bendsie!
He won't.
> For anyone who doesn't understand the legal definition of "chain of custody",
> here's merely one citation:
>
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chain+of+Custody
I understand it and the point is NO one who had JURISDICTION in this
crime accompanied the evidence to the FBI who had NO jursidiction.
Thus the chain of custody was violated.
I have read this and let's revisit NUMBER TWO again, okay?
Quote on
2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had
possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time
it is presented in court;
Quote off
Who went to D.C. for the DPD Bendsie? See it says testimony is
accepted from "individuals who HAS HAD POSSESSION OF THE EVIDENCE FROM
THE TIME IT IS SEIZED TO THE TIME IT IS PRESENTED IN COURT!"
When the DPD gave the evidence to the FBI without sending all the
officers who "discovered it" they BROKE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY!
> >IF you are not part of the jurisdiction
> >YOU have NO right handling evidence!
>
> You're a liar, Robsie. Nor does your assertion even make sense.
See NUMBER two of your OWN cite you stinking WC shill liar!
> >It is like buying a new car and seeing a dent, but NOT saying anything
> >at the time. YOU come back the next day and what do you think they
> >will tell you? That it happened AFTER you drove the car off the lot!
> >When you give evidence to folks who do NOT have jurisdiction you
> >VIOLATE the chain of custody!
>
> This has nothing to do with "chain of custody".
Liar, aren't you? Which FBI agents who handled the evidence (Latona,
Shaneyfelt, Drain, Frazier, etc....) ACTUALLY FOUND THE EVIDENCE????
> >Please do learn our legal system LNer troll!
>
> Indeed, I apparently know much more about it than you do. *MY* definition of
> "chain of custody" is identical with the legal definition I cited.
YOU CAN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND OR LIE ABOUT YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS! YOU are
one of the dumbest Trolls on here next to Walt!
> You will *REFUSE* to cite, since no citation is possible that supports your
> silly ideas.
YOUR own cite supported ME! Presidential assassination was NOT a
federal crime in 1963 so the FBI had NO legal rights to touch or
handle evidence WITHOUT THE DPD OFFICERS WHO FOUND IT BEING PRESENT!
Once LBJ gave them jurisdiction this changed but by then it was TOO
LATE as they contominated 95% of the evidence!
> >> >When you make Walt cite for his claims I will be happy to do so as
> >> >well, but until then, I am through with your double standards.
>
> >> Such reasoning excuses all of your faults, doesn't it?
>
> >Hey, I'm trying to be FAIR UNLIKE YOU! IF I have to provide cites,
> >and everyone else you argue with has to provide them then your
> >soulmate needs to also.
>
> Walt has nothing to do with you refusing to provide a citation for something you
> asserted to me.
It sure does liar, you claim you POINT OUT to folks when they can't
support their own assertions and NO one fails to do this more than
Walt, but you NEVER point it out to him!
Liar, aren't you?
> >> >> >I will think about doing so however when YOU MAKE YOUR LOVER WALT DO
> >> >> >SO!
>
> >> >> Walt can't save you.
>
> >> >OF course NOT, he is too busy with you in bed!
>
> >> Walt can't save you.
>
> >He is too busy with you to save anyone!
>
> Walt can't save you.
I'm NOT his type, he likes Marine Corps washouts I hear!
> >> >> >See, he shouldn't be allowed NEVER to cite and yet you constantly har=
> >p
> >> >> >on us to do so.
>
> >> >> What someone else does or does not do cannot explain *YOUR* failure to=
> > cite.
>
> >> >It is law Bendsie,
>
> >> No, it is not. You're lying again. You cannot cite this mythical "law".
> >> If this *were* a law, it's being broken every single day by law enforcement
> >> agencies in every state.
>
> >YOU are making yourself look very dumb (if that is possible, I have
> >suspected you are really a Marine trying to be a rocket scientist for
> >a long time now) as you have NO UNDERSTANDING OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.
> >But hey, hold your head up, NO LNer does!
>
> The *FACT* that local PD's send evidence to the FBI routinely demonstrates that
> you're "understanding" is a joke.
YOUR OWN cite makes it clear -- you have to send the person who found
the evidence with it IF you want to present it in court if THE FBI has
NO jurisdiction. NOW if it is a federal crime and the FBI helped to
find the evidence then it is a totally different story.
> >> >even you can't lie your way out of this one. =A0The
> >> >FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO JURISDICTION WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN THE
> >> >EVIDENCE. =A0Tis that simple.
>
> >> There's no law against it, and the evidence would certainly have been
> >> allowed in court.
>
> >Liar, aren't you?
>
> I'm not the one unable to cite for my opinion.
YOU cited for me -- THANKS!
Here it is again!
Quote on
2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had
possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time
it is presented in court;
Quote off
Show us which FBI agents who analyzed and tested the evidence on
11/22-11/23/63 ACTUALLY FOUND THE EVIDECE!
He won't.
> >> It's routinely done RIGHT NOW in every state in the Union.
>
> >Liar, aren't you?
>
> Ignorant, aren't you?
The FBI cannot help UNLESS THE LOCAL AUTORITIES ALLOW IT, AND THEY
SEND THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISCOVERED THE EVIDENCE ALONG WITH IT.
YOUR own cite says this liar.
> >> >> >It is a law in terms of evidence. Ask Gil, he will tell you.
>
> >> >> No, it is not. I don't *want* anyone else to "tell me"... I want a cit=
> >ation.
>
> >> >Well, I want them from your lover all the time but he never gives
> >> >them, and you don't call him out, instead you attack me.
>
> >> >NOW you will see how it feels.
>
> >> Caught in a lie, and unable to defend it. Embarrassing, isn't it?
>
> >I am NOT lying "Boy Bendsie" as that is the law. YOU are lying to
> >claim it is not. Jruisdiction is the key to everything.
>
> Caught in a lie, and unable to defend it. Embarrassing, isn't it? No citation
> possible, and you're running like a scared cat.
I don't need cites for the law, and YOUR OWN CITE proves this to be
correct. The chain of custody was destroyed on 11/22/63 when the the
federal authorities took all the evidence and the body. They could
NEVER have gotten LHO to court, thus they made sure he died.
> >> Why not merely provide the laws under which the FBI works, and let's *see* if
> >> what they did is "illegal".
>
> >All I need to say is the assassination of a president was NOT a
> >federal crime in 1963!
>
> So you're asserting that the FBI has jurisdiction *ONLY* over "federal" crimes?
Exactly! Or when a crime crosses the borders of multiple states.
Does this right-wing "warmonger" think they automatically have
jurisdiction over every crime? The scary thing is technically they do
as they can claim it is part of "terrorism", part of a some
international drug crime, part of some international arms deal, etc...
> When you answer, be sure to cite.
LOL!!! What does the "F" stand for you moron? Bendsie thinks the FBI
has JURISDICTION over EVERY COUNTY IN THIS COUNTRY!
> >I can add the SS BROKE the law when they took
> >the body and the limo to D.C. when they Feds had NO jurisdiction.
>
> Yes... they did.
Yet you think giving unescorted evidence to to the FBI when they had
NO jurisdiction is NOT a crime, huh?
> >Ditto the evidence the DPD gave them on 11/22 and 11/23. Look what
> >happened to that stuff too!
>
> The "evidence" broke the law too? What law did the "evidence" break?
CHAIN OF CUSTORY LAWS! Tampering with evidence laws!
> >> If you can't find such a list, I'll be happy to provide it.
>
> >Provide whatever you want, but the TRUTH is the FBI had NO
> >juirisdiction UNTIL LBJ gave it to them, and when was that Bendsie?
>
> >By taking evidence when you have NO jurisdiction you BREAK THE CHAIN
> >OF CUSTODY!
>
> No you don't.
NOTICE how this WC troll forgot to tell us when LBJ gave the FBI
jurisdiction! I can tell you it was NOT on 11/22 or 11/23!
The fact the DPD conducted an illegal search of the Paine's garage on
11/22 would have barred all that was alleged found on 11/23 when they
came back with a warrant under the ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAWS.
For your protection the Police, FBI, etc... are supposed to submit to
a judge for a warrant BEFORE THEY GET A LOOK SEE!
> >When the chain of custody is BROKEN you cannot have that
> >evidence ADMITTED TO COURT. I know this really hard for a WC shill
> >like you to cope with, but that is the law now and in 1963.
>
> You can't cite this mythical law. That makes you a liar.
YOUR OWN CITE shows this is NOT a mythical law you stinking WC shill!
I'm beginning to think the "WC" stands as much for WaltCon as it does
for the Warren Commission
> >> >> You can't provide one.
>
> >> >I can in a minute. Does this homo think I make this stuff up? IT is
> >> >a law you moron.
>
> >> You can't if I give you the same amount of time as I've given Toddy to
> >> find his mythical refutation of the FBI intimidation post.
>
> >Look at the homo cry! Whine, whine, whine, that is all this pervert
> >does.
>
> You lied when you claimed you could cite "in a minute", you lied when you even
> *STATED* that you could cite for this stupid and incorrect assertion.
NO I didn't liar, I CHOOSE NOT to cite for obvious reasons! LOL!!!
WHY should I cite WHEN YOUR OWN CITES SHOW WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE???
> "Jurisdiction" has *NOTHING* to do with the chain of custody.
LIAR aren't you? So I can walk into a crime scene and start touching
things, huh? Hey, I'll tell the cops that Bendsie Holmes told me I
don't NEED NO STINKIN' JURISDICTION!
> >> You're lying again. You CANNOT provide a cite to a "law" that doesn't exist.
>
> >YOU are the liar as anyone who has really researched this case and
> >KNOWS THE US LEGAL SYSTEM knows I am right. I am NOT here to make
> >false claims like you and your "drinking buddy" do!
>
> Where's the legion of lurkers who believe that you are right? Can you name a
> *SINGLE ONE*?
I don't care about the lurkers, nor the other CTers at this point as
they allow you to lie through your teeth and don't call you on it
(Except for CJ).
I'm AM NOT HERE FOR FALSE FELLOWSHIP like you, I AM HERE FOR THE
TRUTH, and YOU rarely utter it.
> You cannot cite for your silly and incorrect assertions about the law, and all
> you're doing is demonstrating once again (as if it were needed), your stupidity.
YOUR OWN CITE SHOWS I AM CORRECT! ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE SHOWN TO BE THE
LYING WC SHILL TROLL WE ALL KNOW YOU ARE.
> >> >> You're lying.
>
> >> >YOU can easily prove I am by showing us how the evidence being taken
> >> >from the area of jurisdiction is NOT violated.
>
> >> That's quite easy. I *ALREADY* pointed out that this is an ordinary common
> >> occurrence. It's done each and every day, in police departments around the
> >> country.
>
> >See?? Bendsie is allowed to TELL US WITH NO CITES LIKE HIS LOVER
> >WALLY, BUT THE REST OF US HAVE TO PROVIDE CITES OR WE ARE LABLED A
> >LIAR!
>
> I'm not the one trying to tell people what the law is.
YOU are liar as you are claiming YOUR take on things is THE LAW AND
AND IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY! Where are your cites? The only one you
gave us so far shows us what a liar you are!
> >What a rigged system, huh? I would get a more fair shake at some
> >"Mayberry" court probably.
>
> You need a cite for my assertion that local PD's send evidence routinely to FBI
> labs? Here's one of many:http://science.howstuffworks.com/csi5.htm
What are the parameters for this? Does the FBI have jurisdiction?
Does the local office send the appropriate person with it? Let's look
at this cite, okay?
Here is the second paragraph:
Quote on
The Denver Crime Lab at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation provides
evidence collection and laboratory analysis for ****any police
department in Colorado that requests its services.**** It also
conducts state investigations that don't fall under the jurisdiction
of any local authority.
Quote off
Notice the usuage of "requests" and "jurisdiction" in this paragraph
and we are NOT even talking about the FBI yet.
THE ONLY MENTION OF THE FBI IS THIS!
Quote on
The first forensics lab in the United States opened in 1923 in Los
Angeles. In 1932, the FBI established its own forensics lab to serve
police departments and other investigating authorities all over the
country. The FBI lab is one of the largest in the world.
Quote off
All it says is "to serve police departments" NOT to take evidence that
they have NO jurisdiction for and cut off the local police who found
it! The FBI would work the same way the Denver crime lab works, on
requests by local police, and then the local would have to send the
appropriate person(s) with it UNLESS it is a FEDERAL crime.
Bendsie is trying to confuse you with the scenario where a small town
may use the FBI for its FORENSIC needs because it has NONE or very
little (and they have been hit with some serious crime) with a major
US city that has all that and JURISDICTION.
There are many cases where small towns invite the assasstance of the
federal authorites, but that is the key part, they INVITE THE HELP and
in most cases the FBI will send in a team to do the CRIME SCENE
themselves! The FBI has branch offices all over the country!
Why can't Bendsie show us which FBI agents found the evidence they
processed illegally on 11/22 and 11/23?
> Now, plan to cite for your lie about the law?
Why? YOUR cites show you are a liar!
> >> >> Perhaps ignorantly, but you're lying just the same.
>
> >> >IF I thought I was wrong I would admit it,
>
> >> This is why you're a moron.
>
> >Bendsie is a liar and a man obsessed with another man -- Wally -- to
> >the point he can't even think straight.
>
> *This* is why you're a moron.
YOU are a gay man who loves him some Wally! Admit it, embrace it!
Then admit that you are one of the biggest liars on here.
> >> >but everything I have read
> >> >legal wise over the years has said this is a clear violation of the
> >> >law.
>
> >> Then the "law" is being violated virtually every day. As I've already pointed
> >> out.
>
> >NO it isn't liar. THIS LAW IS FOLLOWED IN EVERY CASE
>
> *WHAT* law, moron? Cite it.
Jurisdictional law you moron. YOUR own cites show this.
Robert
I used they as a general term for all FEDERAL AGENCIES, and the last
tim I looked WC Shill, the SS was a FEDERAL AGENCY!
> However... If you can't provide the documentation to back up your
> claim....the It's your responsiblity to acknowledge that you're stupid
> and made a stupid statement.
Quite trying to distract you stinking liar. I know, and anyone who
follows this case knows the SS took the body, but they are still a
federal agency with NO jurisdiction on 11/22/63!
That is the PART YOU ARE LYING TO HIDE YOU STINKING WC SHILL!
Walt
Happy to oblige.....Here's what you wrote on Sept 3 at 4:09pm.......
"THE FBI HAD NO JURISDICTION ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER, THUS WHEN
THEY TOOK THE EVIDENCE AND THE BODY THEY VIOLATED THE LAW. "..Rob
Caprio
Did you or did you not write that?.... I sincerely hope that you will
lie and deny....Because anybody reading this will know that you are a
LIAR.....And that will harm your credibility even more.
I sid "they"
> in the quote you gave us and I mentioned the FBI in regards to the
> evidence -- NOT THE BODY!
>
> Wally the Shill is left with more lying to save himself.- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Sep 4, 9:16=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <f00df803-0006-4fa6-8052-f7ba0db12...@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>> >On Sep 3, 6:27=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <a08638e3-2b82-4f57-8a9a-6f1cbc44b...@38g2000yqr.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >On Sep 3, 5:24=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <175b6a69-85e0-470f-8c61-985923892...@w36g2000yqm.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> Robert says...
>>
>te:
>> >> >> >> In article <7e7e83ef-72c4-41c5-a918-005200cb8...@e11g2000yqo.goo=
>gle=3D
>> >gro=3D3D
>> >> >ups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> Robert says...
>>
>> wro=3D
>> >te:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <9acd43a0-bd3e-48d5-8aea-4fb064aac...@s31g2000yqs.=
>goo=3D
>> >gle=3D3D
>> >> >gro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ups=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Sep 1, 10:43=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> =
>wrote=3D
>> >:
>> >> >> >> >> >> An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>>
>_FB=3D
>> >I_C=3D3D
>> >> >han=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >g..=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became tai=
>nte=3D
>> >d w=3D3D
>> >> >hen
>> >> >> >> >> >the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI had
>of it=3D
>> > from=3D3D
>> >> > a co=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >urt
>> >> >> >> >> >of law perspective.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Untrue.
>>
>is
>> >> >> >> >case the body, to those NOT in legal jurisdiction you ruin the =
>CHA=3D
>> >IN
>> >> >> >> >OF CUSTODY! Do you even understand what this means? I doubt it =
>as =3D
>> >ALL
>> >> >> >> >you WC shills and trolls lie about this part.
>>
>> >> >> >> Untrue. You will continue to refuse to cite for this...
>>
>> >> >> >It is common law, there is NO need to cite for it.
>>
>or =3D
>> >it.
>>
>> >> >It called chain of evidence and when you give it to someone NOT in th=
>e
>> >> >"chain" you have violated the law.
>>
>> >> Are you really *this* much of a moron?
>>
>> >NO, but YOU are!
>>
>no
>> >> 'pre-determined' list of people who are "allowed" to have possession o=
>f
>> >> evidence.
>>
>> >LOL!! This moron doesn't even understand the law! The "predetermined
>> >list" is set BY JURISDICTION!
>>
>> Then you should be able to cite for such an assertion.
>
>I don't cite for the truth.
Nor, quite obviously, do you cite for lies.
>NOW, tell us which DPD officer went to
>D.C. to maintain the chain of custody
Not needed.
>since the FBI had NO
>jurisdicition. Tell us when LBJ gave them jurisdiction Boy Bendsie!
Which one of them wore the red cape? You know, of course, that anyone handling
evidence in the official "chain of custody" is required to wear a red cape.
I'd cite for that fact, but you must already know it, it's in the same section
of law that details the "predetermined list" of those allowed to touch the
evidence in a "jurisdiction".
In fact, the paragraph right *under* that one specifically states that child
molesters are not allowed to be in the "chain of custody."
>> But not only can you *NOT*, you won't even try.
>
>I don't have to cite for the LAW WC troll!
I would... but since you won't, I'll just refer to what *else* that same law
that you refuse to cite says.
>The law in 1963 made the
>murder of JFK a STATE and local crime, NOT a federal one!
Was it a felony, by any chance?
>The FBI had
>NO juridiction UNTIL LBJ gave it to them, thus they could NOT handle
>evidence without the proper DPD officers being there!
Unfortunately for you, the FBI *DOES* have jurisdiction over felonies. Not sole
jurisdiction, but they *do* by law have it.
>Tell us which DPD officer(s) went to D.C on 11/22-11/23/63 Boy
>Bendsie!
The one wearing the red cape, of course.
>He won't.
Just did.
>> For anyone who doesn't understand the legal definition of "chain of
>> custody", here's merely one citation:
>>
>> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chain+of+Custody
>
>I understand it
No, you clearly *DON'T*. Since you refuse to agree with it.
>and the point is NO one who had JURISDICTION in this
>crime accompanied the evidence to the FBI who had NO jursidiction.
>Thus the chain of custody was violated.
That is *NOT* what the cite I gave supports.
>I have read this and let's revisit NUMBER TWO again, okay?
>
>Quote on
>
>2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had
>possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time
>it is presented in court;
Yep... perfectly understandable. Of course, *YOU* don't understand it.
>Quote off
>
>Who went to D.C. for the DPD Bendsie?
The guy in the red cape.
>See it says testimony is
>accepted from "individuals who HAS HAD POSSESSION OF THE EVIDENCE FROM
>THE TIME IT IS SEIZED TO THE TIME IT IS PRESENTED IN COURT!"
Yep... absolutely true.
>When the DPD gave the evidence to the FBI without sending all the
>officers who "discovered it" they BROKE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY!
No, they didn't.
Moron, aren't you?
>> >IF you are not part of the jurisdiction
>> >YOU have NO right handling evidence!
>>
>> You're a liar, Robsie. Nor does your assertion even make sense.
>
>See NUMBER two of your OWN cite you stinking WC shill liar!
Sorry stupid, my citation does not support your lie.
>> >It is like buying a new car and seeing a dent, but NOT saying anything
>> >at the time. YOU come back the next day and what do you think they
>> >will tell you? That it happened AFTER you drove the car off the lot!
>> >When you give evidence to folks who do NOT have jurisdiction you
>> >VIOLATE the chain of custody!
>>
>> This has nothing to do with "chain of custody".
>
>Liar, aren't you? Which FBI agents who handled the evidence (Latona,
>Shaneyfelt, Drain, Frazier, etc....) ACTUALLY FOUND THE EVIDENCE????
They don't have to, stupid.
>> >Please do learn our legal system LNer troll!
>>
>> Indeed, I apparently know much more about it than you do. *MY* definition of
>> "chain of custody" is identical with the legal definition I cited.
>
>YOU CAN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND OR LIE ABOUT YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS! YOU are
>one of the dumbest Trolls on here next to Walt!
Oh, I think I'll leave it to lurkers to judge that one... :)
>> You will *REFUSE* to cite, since no citation is possible that supports your
>> silly ideas.
>
>YOUR own cite supported ME!
No it doesn't, stupid.
It makes *NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER* to any "predetermined list" of those in a
jurisdiction who are allowed to be within the 'chain of custody'.
>Presidential assassination was NOT a
>federal crime in 1963
Was it a felony?
>so the FBI had NO legal rights
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3052 says otherwise...
>to touch or
>handle evidence WITHOUT THE DPD OFFICERS WHO FOUND IT BEING PRESENT!
Untrue. Nor can you cite for such a ridiculous thing.
>Once LBJ gave them jurisdiction this changed but by then it was TOO
>LATE as they contominated 95% of the evidence!
Well, good for them, I say! Perhaps if you ask nicely, they'll "contominate"
you as well...
>> >> >When you make Walt cite for his claims I will be happy to do so as
>> >> >well, but until then, I am through with your double standards.
>>
>> >> Such reasoning excuses all of your faults, doesn't it?
>>
>> >Hey, I'm trying to be FAIR UNLIKE YOU! =A0IF I have to provide cites,
>> >and everyone else you argue with has to provide them then your
>> >soulmate needs to also.
>>
>> Walt has nothing to do with you refusing to provide a citation for
>> something you asserted to me.
>
>It sure does liar, you claim you POINT OUT to folks when they can't
>support their own assertions and NO one fails to do this more than
>Walt, but you NEVER point it out to him!
>
>Liar, aren't you?
Walt has nothing to do with you refusing to provide a citation for something you
asserted to me.
>> >> >> >I will think about doing so however when YOU MAKE YOUR LOVER WALT =
>DO
>> >> >> >SO!
>>
>> >> >> Walt can't save you.
>>
>> >> >OF course NOT, he is too busy with you in bed!
>>
>> >> Walt can't save you.
>>
>> >He is too busy with you to save anyone!
>>
>> Walt can't save you.
>
>I'm NOT his type, he likes Marine Corps washouts I hear!
Walt can't save you.
>> >> >> >See, he shouldn't be allowed NEVER to cite and yet you constantly =
>har=3D
>> >p
>> >> >> >on us to do so.
>>
>> >> >> What someone else does or does not do cannot explain *YOUR* failure=
> to=3D
>> > cite.
>>
>> >> >It is law Bendsie,
>>
>> >> No, it is not. You're lying again. You cannot cite this mythical "law"=
>.
>> >> If this *were* a law, it's being broken every single day by law enforc=
>ement
>> >> agencies in every state.
>>
>> >YOU are making yourself look very dumb (if that is possible, I have
>> >suspected you are really a Marine trying to be a rocket scientist for
>> >a long time now) as you have NO UNDERSTANDING OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.
>> >But hey, hold your head up, NO LNer does!
>>
>> The *FACT* that local PD's send evidence to the FBI routinely
>> demonstrates that you're "understanding" is a joke.
>
>YOUR OWN cite makes it clear -- you have to send the person who found
>the evidence with it
Stupid, aren't you?
My cite says no such thing, nor is there any such requirement. Why not simply
place a call to your local PD and ask them?
>IF you want to present it in court if THE FBI has
>NO jurisdiction.
The FBI *does* have jurisdiction. Title 18, United States Code, Section 3052
gave it to them.
>NOW if it is a federal crime and the FBI helped to
>find the evidence then it is a totally different story.
Nope... not at all.
>> >> >even you can't lie your way out of this one. =3DA0The
>> >> >FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO JURISDICTION WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN THE
>> >> >EVIDENCE. =3DA0Tis that simple.
>>
>> >> There's no law against it, and the evidence would certainly have been
>> >> allowed in court.
>>
>> >Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> I'm not the one unable to cite for my opinion.
>
>YOU cited for me -- THANKS!
Only a moron would think so...
>Here it is again!
>
>Quote on
>
>2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had
>possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time
>it is presented in court;
>
>Quote off
>
>Show us which FBI agents who analyzed and tested the evidence on
>11/22-11/23/63 ACTUALLY FOUND THE EVIDECE!
Your quote doesn't support any such assertion.
>He won't.
Nor will I tell you which one wore the red cape.
>> >> It's routinely done RIGHT NOW in every state in the Union.
>>
>> >Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> Ignorant, aren't you?
>
>The FBI cannot help UNLESS THE LOCAL AUTORITIES ALLOW IT, AND THEY
>SEND THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISCOVERED THE EVIDENCE ALONG WITH IT.
>
>YOUR own cite says this liar.
No it doesn't. Stupid, aren't you?
>> >> >> >It is a law in terms of evidence. Ask Gil, he will tell you.
>>
>> >> >> No, it is not. I don't *want* anyone else to "tell me"... I want a =
>cit=3D
>> >ation.
>>
>> >> >Well, I want them from your lover all the time but he never gives
>> >> >them, and you don't call him out, instead you attack me.
>>
>> >> >NOW you will see how it feels.
>>
>> >> Caught in a lie, and unable to defend it. Embarrassing, isn't it?
>>
>> >I am NOT lying "Boy Bendsie" as that is the law. =A0YOU are lying to
>> >claim it is not. =A0Jruisdiction is the key to everything.
>>
>> Caught in a lie, and unable to defend it. =A0Embarrassing, isn't it? =A0N=
>o citation
>> possible, and you're running like a scared cat.
>
>I don't need cites for the law,
The same law you refuse to cite says that a red cape will be worn by anyone
carrying evidence in the "chain of custody". Which persons wore the cape on
11/22/63?
And since that same law specifically forbids child molesters from touching any
evidence in the chain of custody, I'm sure that *YOU'VE* never had the
experience of being in the chain of custody.
>and YOUR OWN CITE proves this to be
>correct.
No it doesn't, moron.
>The chain of custody was destroyed on 11/22/63 when the the
>federal authorities took all the evidence and the body.
No it wasn't, moron.
>They could
>NEVER have gotten LHO to court, thus they made sure he died.
A rather silly line of thinking, moron.
>> >> Why not merely provide the laws under which the FBI works, and let's *=
>see* if
>> >> what they did is "illegal".
>>
>> >All I need to say is the assassination of a president was NOT a
>> >federal crime in 1963!
>>
>> So you're asserting that the FBI has jurisdiction *ONLY* over "federal"
>> crimes?
>
>Exactly!
So only "federal" crimes can be felonies, right?
>Or when a crime crosses the borders of multiple states.
>Does this right-wing "warmonger" think they automatically have
>jurisdiction over every crime?
No, only over those crimes specifically referred to in law.
>The scary thing is technically they do
>as they can claim it is part of "terrorism", part of a some
>international drug crime, part of some international arms deal, etc...
How silly!
>> When you answer, be sure to cite.
>
>LOL!!! What does the "F" stand for you moron? Bendsie thinks the FBI
>has JURISDICTION over EVERY COUNTY IN THIS COUNTRY!
They *DO* have jurisdiction *IN* every county in this country.
>> >I can add the SS BROKE the law when they took
>> >the body and the limo to D.C. when they Feds had NO jurisdiction.
>>
>> Yes... they did.
>
>Yet you think giving unescorted evidence
There is *NO* requirement in the law that evidence must be "escorted".
Unless you're referring to the red cape.
>to to the FBI when they had
>NO jurisdiction is NOT a crime, huh?
Not only *stupid*, but a TRUE idiot. Listen up folks! If you're involved in an
investigation, you'd better not offer up any evidence to the nice policeman, *HE
MIGHT NOT BE ONE ON THE "PRE-DETERMINED LIST" OF THOSE AUTHORIZED IN THE
JURISDICTION!* And *YOU* would be guilty of a crime for handing any evidence to
someone not "authorized"!!
>> >Ditto the evidence the DPD gave them on 11/22 and 11/23. Look what
>> >happened to that stuff too!
>>
>> The "evidence" broke the law too? What law did the "evidence" break?
>
>CHAIN OF CUSTORY LAWS! Tampering with evidence laws!
Never heard of it. It's surprising how many people have, however... anyone,
Google "custory" for amusement.
>> >> If you can't find such a list, I'll be happy to provide it.
>>
>> >Provide whatever you want, but the TRUTH is the FBI had NO
>> >juirisdiction UNTIL LBJ gave it to them, and when was that Bendsie?
>>
>> >By taking evidence when you have NO jurisdiction you BREAK THE CHAIN
>> >OF CUSTODY!
>>
>> No you don't.
>
>NOTICE how this WC troll forgot to tell us when LBJ gave the FBI
>jurisdiction! I can tell you it was NOT on 11/22 or 11/23!
Doesn't matter.
>The fact the DPD conducted an illegal search of the Paine's garage on
>11/22
What was "illegal" about it?
>would have barred all that was alleged found on 11/23 when they
>came back with a warrant under the ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAWS.
>
>For your protection the Police, FBI, etc... are supposed to submit to
>a judge for a warrant BEFORE THEY GET A LOOK SEE!
Untrue.
>> >When the chain of custody is BROKEN you cannot have that
>> >evidence ADMITTED TO COURT. I know this really hard for a WC shill
>> >like you to cope with, but that is the law now and in 1963.
>>
>> You can't cite this mythical law. That makes you a liar.
>
>YOUR OWN CITE shows this is NOT a mythical law you stinking WC shill!
>I'm beginning to think the "WC" stands as much for WaltCon as it does
>for the Warren Commission
You can't cite this mythical law. That makes you a liar.
>> >> >> You can't provide one.
>>
>> >> >I can in a minute. Does this homo think I make this stuff up? IT is
>> >> >a law you moron.
>>
>> >> You can't if I give you the same amount of time as I've given Toddy to
>> >> find his mythical refutation of the FBI intimidation post.
>>
>> >Look at the homo cry! =A0Whine, whine, whine, that is all this pervert
>> >does.
>>
>> You lied when you claimed you could cite "in a minute", you lied when
>> you even *STATED* that you could cite for this stupid and incorrect
>> assertion.
>
>NO I didn't liar, I CHOOSE NOT to cite for obvious reasons! LOL!!!
Yep... because you're too stupid to be able to look it up.
>WHY should I cite WHEN YOUR OWN CITES SHOW WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE???
They don't.
>> "Jurisdiction" has *NOTHING* to do with the chain of custody.
>
>LIAR aren't you? So I can walk into a crime scene and start touching
>things, huh? Hey, I'll tell the cops that Bendsie Holmes told me I
>don't NEED NO STINKIN' JURISDICTION!
Moron, aren't you?
>> >> You're lying again. You CANNOT provide a cite to a "law" that doesn't =
>exist.
>>
>> >YOU are the liar as anyone who has really researched this case and
>> >KNOWS THE US LEGAL SYSTEM knows I am right. I am NOT here to make
>> >false claims like you and your "drinking buddy" do!
>>
>> Where's the legion of lurkers who believe that you are right?
>> Can you name a *SINGLE ONE*?
>
>I don't care about the lurkers,
You just referred to them... don't you think if you reference them for support
that you should be capable of naming just *ONE* of them?
>nor the other CTers at this point as
>they allow you to lie through your teeth and don't call you on it
>(Except for CJ).
If CJ cares to weigh in, I'd be happy to see it. But he probably won't, he's
smarter than you are.
>I'm AM NOT HERE FOR FALSE FELLOWSHIP like you, I AM HERE FOR THE
>TRUTH, and YOU rarely utter it.
And yet, I cite, and you don't. Why is that, moron?
>> You cannot cite for your silly and incorrect assertions about the law,
>> and all you're doing is demonstrating once again (as if it were needed),
>> your stupidity.
>
>YOUR OWN CITE SHOWS I AM CORRECT!
No it doesn't, moron.
>ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE SHOWN TO BE THE
>LYING WC SHILL TROLL WE ALL KNOW YOU ARE.
Who's "we" stupid?
>> >> >> You're lying.
>>
>> >> >YOU can easily prove I am by showing us how the evidence being taken
>> >> >from the area of jurisdiction is NOT violated.
>>
>> >> That's quite easy. I *ALREADY* pointed out that this is an ordinary co=
>mmon
>> >> occurrence. It's done each and every day, in police departments around=
> the
>> >> country.
>>
>> >See?? Bendsie is allowed to TELL US WITH NO CITES LIKE HIS LOVER
>> >WALLY, BUT THE REST OF US HAVE TO PROVIDE CITES OR WE ARE LABLED A
>> >LIAR!
>>
>> I'm not the one trying to tell people what the law is.
>
>YOU are liar as you are claiming YOUR take on things is THE LAW AND
>AND IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY!
And strangely enough, I cite for it too.
>Where are your cites? The only one you
>gave us so far shows us what a liar you are!
The "only" one? Can't count, either. Stupid, aren't you?
>> >What a rigged system, huh? I would get a more fair shake at some
>> >"Mayberry" court probably.
>>
>> You need a cite for my assertion that local PD's send evidence
>> routinely to FBI labs? Here's one of many:
>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/csi5.htm
>
>What are the parameters for this?
Well, they have to wear the red cape, of course...
>Does the FBI have jurisdiction?
Clearly, they must have... since no-one outside of jurisdiction is allowed, by
your mythical law, to fall into the chain of custody.
>Does the local office send the appropriate person with it?
Only if the local FBI office red cape is already in use by someone else.
>Let's look at this cite, okay?
>
>Here is the second paragraph:
>
>Quote on
>
>The Denver Crime Lab at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation provides
>evidence collection and laboratory analysis for ****any police
>department in Colorado that requests its services.**** It also
>conducts state investigations that don't fall under the jurisdiction
>of any local authority.
>
>Quote off
>
>Notice the usuage of "requests" and "jurisdiction" in this paragraph
>and we are NOT even talking about the FBI yet.
>
>THE ONLY MENTION OF THE FBI IS THIS!
>
>Quote on
>
>The first forensics lab in the United States opened in 1923 in Los
>Angeles. In 1932, the FBI established its own forensics lab to serve
>police departments and other investigating authorities all over the
>country. The FBI lab is one of the largest in the world.
Ah! So clearly, the "jurisdiction" of the FBI is "all over the country."
>Quote off
>
>All it says is "to serve police departments" NOT to take evidence that
>they have NO jurisdiction for
But we just saw, their "jurisdiction" is "all over the country."
>and cut off the local police who found
>it! The FBI would work the same way the Denver crime lab works, on
>requests by local police, and then the local would have to send the
>appropriate person(s) with it UNLESS it is a FEDERAL crime.
As long as they wore the red cape.
>Bendsie is trying to confuse you with the scenario where a small town
>may use the FBI for its FORENSIC needs because it has NONE or very
>little (and they have been hit with some serious crime) with a major
>US city that has all that and JURISDICTION.
Sorry stupid, even "major US cities" utilize the FBI. The FBI, for example,
maintains the largest collection of fingerprint data. Los Angeles, for example,
would have to throw up their hands and give up if the criminal left fingerprints
at the scene, then flew back out to his home state... right moron?
>There are many cases where small towns invite the assasstance of the
>federal authorites,
Whew! Scared me! I was beginning to wonder that "assasstance" a federal
authority could provide, but obviously "assasstance" must be limited to federal
"authorites".
>but that is the key part, they INVITE THE HELP and
>in most cases the FBI will send in a team to do the CRIME SCENE
>themselves! The FBI has branch offices all over the country!
Wearing, of course, the red cape in case they accidentally touch "evidence".
>Why can't Bendsie show us which FBI agents found the evidence they
>processed illegally on 11/22 and 11/23?
He was the one with the red cape, of course.
>> Now, plan to cite for your lie about the law?
>
>Why? YOUR cites show you are a liar!
Then all you have to do is quote my "lie", and cite the evidence that shows it,
right stupid?
>> >> >> Perhaps ignorantly, but you're lying just the same.
>>
>> >> >IF I thought I was wrong I would admit it,
>>
>> >> This is why you're a moron.
>>
>> >Bendsie is a liar and a man obsessed with another man -- Wally -- to
>> >the point he can't even think straight.
>>
>> *This* is why you're a moron.
>
>YOU are a gay man who loves him some Wally! Admit it, embrace it!
>Then admit that you are one of the biggest liars on here.
*This* is why you're a moron.
>> >> >but everything I have read
>> >> >legal wise over the years has said this is a clear violation of the
>> >> >law.
>>
>> >> Then the "law" is being violated virtually every day. As I've already =
>pointed
>> >> out.
>>
>> >NO it isn't liar. THIS LAW IS FOLLOWED IN EVERY CASE
>>
>> *WHAT* law, moron? Cite it.
>
>Jurisdictional law you moron. YOUR own cites show this.
*WHAT* law, moron? Cite it.
>> >BUT THE
>> >ASSASSINATIONS FOR THE MOST PART AS IT WILL SINK YOUR CASE FASTER THAN
>> >YOU GO DOWN ON WALLY!
>>
>> >WHY must these LNer Trolls lie constantly???
Robert
> In article <0accd008-1b2f-469b-a01f-089de7ba6...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
It is NOT a lie, and you will be shown for the lying WC shill you are
in a NEW "Provable Lies of Ben Holmes Post" here in a few minutes.
YOU have shown what a lying WC shill you are with stand as any first
year law student knows the law of Jurisdiction! Why do you think
folks have to be SENT BACK to the jurisction of the crime when they
are caught elsewhere Bendsie?
>>NOW, tell us which DPD officer went to
> >D.C. to maintain the chain of custody
>
> Not needed.
Liar, aren't you? I'm saving all of these comments too because when
the liar is shown the truth he will lie about saying this stuff.
> >since the FBI had NO
> >jurisdicition. Tell us when LBJ gave them jurisdiction Boy Bendsie!
>
> Which one of them wore the red cape? You know, of course, that anyone handling
> evidence in the official "chain of custody" is required to wear a red cape.
This is what we get INSTEAD of the honest truth! Bendsie is like all
LNer trolls though, they use strawmen to hide the truth as they have
NONE of it on their side.
It is a simple question,and a highly important one too, but Bendsie
plays games instead of answering it.
> I'd cite for that fact, but you must already know it, it's in the same section
> of law that details the "predetermined list" of those allowed to touch the
> evidence in a "jurisdiction".
Too bad the FBi did NOT have jurisdiction on 11/22-11/23/63, huh? IF
they did, they could have taken LHO with them, why didn't they Boy
Bendsie?
> In fact, the paragraph right *under* that one specifically states that child
> molesters are not allowed to be in the "chain of custody."
Don't bring up YOUR sickness to distract. We all know you are lying
you sick, perverted piece of crap, and I will show it in a few. It
will come from ONE of the FBI's very own too!
> >> But not only can you *NOT*, you won't even try.
>
> >I don't have to cite for the LAW WC troll!
>
> I would... but since you won't, I'll just refer to what *else* that same law
> that you refuse to cite says.
The law is the law liar.
> >The law in 1963 made the
> >murder of JFK a STATE and local crime, NOT a federal one!
>
> Was it a felony, by any chance?
Yes, but show us the 1963 law that said ALL felonies automatically
became a FEDERAL CRIME!
> >The FBI had
> >NO juridiction UNTIL LBJ gave it to them, thus they could NOT handle
> >evidence without the proper DPD officers being there!
>
> Unfortunately for you, the FBI *DOES* have jurisdiction over felonies. Not sole
> jurisdiction, but they *do* by law have it.
LOL!! YOU are a liar as the FBI would have NO time to investigate
EVERY felony in the U.S. Boy, this guy lies more than a rug in the
Taj Mahal, huh?
Show us this law, and I want it circa 1963 too!
> >Tell us which DPD officer(s) went to D.C on 11/22-11/23/63 Boy
> >Bendsie!
>
> The one wearing the red cape, of course.
Strawmen won't save you!
> >He won't.
>
> Just did.
Strawmen won't save you, you lying WC shill troll!
> >> For anyone who doesn't understand the legal definition of "chain of
> >> custody", here's merely one citation:
>
> >>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chain+of+Custody
>
> >I understand it
>
> No, you clearly *DON'T*. Since you refuse to agree with it.
I understand it, that is why I know someone had to accompany the
evidence since the FBI did NOT have jurisdiction! YOU are the one
lying about that to save your beloved WC.
> >and the point is NO one who had JURISDICTION in this
> >crime accompanied the evidence to the FBI who had NO jursidiction.
> >Thus the chain of custody was violated.
>
> That is *NOT* what the cite I gave supports.
Sure does, as the cite you gave us is ASSUMING all involved have
jurisdiction, but in this case the FBI did NOT, thus a person who did
have jurisdiction had to STAY WITH THE EVIDENCE TO MAINTAIN THE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY!
Are you really this dumb or just a really bad liar?
> >I have read this and let's revisit NUMBER TWO again, okay?
>
> >Quote on
>
> >2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had
> >possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time
> >it is presented in court;
>
> Yep... perfectly understandable. Of course, *YOU* don't understand it.
Show us where it says you can give said evidence to someone with NO
jurisdiction. Why NOT just give the evidence to YOU for analysis?
> >Quote off
>
> >Who went to D.C. for the DPD Bendsie?
>
> The guy in the red cape.
Strawmen won't save you WC shill troll!
> >See it says testimony is
> >accepted from "individuals who HAS HAD POSSESSION OF THE EVIDENCE FROM
> >THE TIME IT IS SEIZED TO THE TIME IT IS PRESENTED IN COURT!"
>
> Yep... absolutely true.
AND HAD JURSIDICTION! Why does Bendsie lie about this part? Why is
he sooooo determined to keep the WC's case alive? Oh that is right,
because he is a WC shill troll!
> >When the DPD gave the evidence to the FBI without sending all the
> >officers who "discovered it" they BROKE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY!
>
> No, they didn't.
Yes they did WC troll.
> Moron, aren't you?
Lying WC troll, aren't you? Marine Corps washout, aren't you?
> >> >IF you are not part of the jurisdiction
> >> >YOU have NO right handling evidence!
>
> >> You're a liar, Robsie. Nor does your assertion even make sense.
>
> >See NUMBER two of your OWN cite you stinking WC shill liar!
>
> Sorry stupid, my citation does not support your lie.
It sure does, as it ASSUMES everyone involved has JURISDICTION, and it
this case they did not.
> >> >It is like buying a new car and seeing a dent, but NOT saying anything
> >> >at the time. YOU come back the next day and what do you think they
> >> >will tell you? That it happened AFTER you drove the car off the lot!
> >> >When you give evidence to folks who do NOT have jurisdiction you
> >> >VIOLATE the chain of custody!
>
> >> This has nothing to do with "chain of custody".
>
> >Liar, aren't you? Which FBI agents who handled the evidence (Latona,
> >Shaneyfelt, Drain, Frazier, etc....) ACTUALLY FOUND THE EVIDENCE????
>
> They don't have to, stupid.
THEY DO IF THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION LIAR!
> >> >Please do learn our legal system LNer troll!
>
> >> Indeed, I apparently know much more about it than you do. *MY* definition of
> >> "chain of custody" is identical with the legal definition I cited.
>
> >YOU CAN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND OR LIE ABOUT YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS! YOU are
> >one of the dumbest Trolls on here next to Walt!
>
> Oh, I think I'll leave it to lurkers to judge that one... :)
I'm find with that one too, but show us where your defintion dealt
with GIVING EVIDENCE TO SOMEONE WITH NO JURISDICTION! Without that
part, and it does NOT have that part, your definition is worthless for
your point.
> >> You will *REFUSE* to cite, since no citation is possible that supports your
> >> silly ideas.
>
> >YOUR own cite supported ME!
> No it doesn't, stupid.
Sure did, since it did NOT mention giving evidence to folks with NO
jurisdiction and that being okay!
> It makes *NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER* to any "predetermined list" of those in a
> jurisdiction who are allowed to be within the 'chain of custody'.
Exactly the point moron!
> >Presidential assassination was NOT a
> >federal crime in 1963
>
> Was it a felony?
Felonies are handled by local and state police, NOT the FBI moron.
Nowadays the FBI can muscle their way into more circumstances because
of all the 9/11 laws, but the main point is they do NOT get inolved in
all felonies. A FEDERAL LAW has to be broken for them to have
jurisdiction.
> >so the FBI had NO legal rights
>
> Title 18, United States Code, Section 3052 says otherwise...
LOL!!! Why not list it for us. So Bendsie thinks the FBI has
jurisdiction in all felonies that do NOT cross state lines, huh?
LOL!!
> >to touch or
> >handle evidence WITHOUT THE DPD OFFICERS WHO FOUND IT BEING PRESENT!
>
> Untrue. Nor can you cite for such a ridiculous thing.
It is the law moron.
> >Once LBJ gave them jurisdiction this changed but by then it was TOO
> >LATE as they contominated 95% of the evidence!
>
> Well, good for them, I say! Perhaps if you ask nicely, they'll "contominate"
> you as well...
Sure, when one is a liar like Bendsie all they have is spelling issues
and strawmen to use. Typical troll behavior.
> >> >> >When you make Walt cite for his claims I will be happy to do so as
> >> >> >well, but until then, I am through with your double standards.
>
> >> >> Such reasoning excuses all of your faults, doesn't it?
>
> >> >Hey, I'm trying to be FAIR UNLIKE YOU! =A0IF I have to provide cites,
> >> >and everyone else you argue with has to provide them then your
> >> >soulmate needs to also.
>
> >> Walt has nothing to do with you refusing to provide a citation for
> >> something you asserted to me.
>
> >It sure does liar, you claim you POINT OUT to folks when they can't
> >support their own assertions and NO one fails to do this more than
> >Walt, but you NEVER point it out to him!
>
> >Liar, aren't you?
>
> Walt has nothing to do with you refusing to provide a citation for something you
> asserted to me.
Liar, aren't you? YOU said you "point out" when someone can't support
their own assertions and NO one does this more than Walt, but you
NEVER point it out to him. YOU are a liar Bendsie. Tis that simple.
> >> >> >> >I will think about doing so however when YOU MAKE YOUR LOVER WALT =
> >DO
> >> >> >> >SO!
>
> >> >> >> Walt can't save you.
>
> >> >> >OF course NOT, he is too busy with you in bed!
>
> >> >> Walt can't save you.
>
> >> >He is too busy with you to save anyone!
>
> >> Walt can't save you.
>
> >I'm NOT his type, he likes Marine Corps washouts I hear!
>
> Walt can't save you.
He is into you big time from what I hear, but he has to compete with
YOUR sickness for kids!
> >> >> >> >See, he shouldn't be allowed NEVER to cite and yet you constantly =
> >har=3D
> >> >p
> >> >> >> >on us to do so.
>
> >> >> >> What someone else does or does not do cannot explain *YOUR* failure=
> > to=3D
> >> > cite.
>
> >> >> >It is law Bendsie,
>
> >> >> No, it is not. You're lying again. You cannot cite this mythical "law"=
> >.
> >> >> If this *were* a law, it's being broken every single day by law enforc=
> >ement
> >> >> agencies in every state.
>
> >> >YOU are making yourself look very dumb (if that is possible, I have
> >> >suspected you are really a Marine trying to be a rocket scientist for
> >> >a long time now) as you have NO UNDERSTANDING OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.
> >> >But hey, hold your head up, NO LNer does!
>
> >> The *FACT* that local PD's send evidence to the FBI routinely
> >> demonstrates that you're "understanding" is a joke.
>
> >YOUR OWN cite makes it clear -- you have to send the person who found
> >the evidence with it
>
> Stupid, aren't you?
NOT as dumb as you moron. Why not give us a cite that mentions one
org NOT HAVING JURISDICTION? YOU gave us a cite that ONLY applies to
everyone having it that touches the evidence. YOU are comparing
apples and oranges you stinkin' moronic liar.
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Sep 8, 9:04=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <0accd008-1b2f-469b-a01f-089de7ba6...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>> >On Sep 4, 9:16=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <f00df803-0006-4fa6-8052-f7ba0db12...@o41g2000yqb.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >On Sep 3, 6:27=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <a08638e3-2b82-4f57-8a9a-6f1cbc44b...@38g2000yqr.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Sep 3, 5:24=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>te:
>> >> >> >> In article <175b6a69-85e0-470f-8c61-985923892...@w36g2000yqm.goo=
>gle=3D
>> >gro=3D3D
>> >> >ups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> Robert says...
>>
>> wro=3D
>> >te:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <7e7e83ef-72c4-41c5-a918-005200cb8...@e11g2000yqo.=
>goo=3D
>> >gle=3D3D
>> >> >gro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ups=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> Robert says...
>>
>e.com=3D
>> >> wro=3D3D
>> >> >te:
>> >> >> >> >> >> In article <9acd43a0-bd3e-48d5-8aea-4fb064aac...@s31g2000y=
>qs.=3D
>> >goo=3D3D
>> >> >gle=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >gro=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ups=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Sep 1, 10:43=3D3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.=
>com> =3D
>> >wrote=3D3D
>> >> >:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>>
>the=3D
>> >_FB=3D3D
>> >> >I_C=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >han=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >g..=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >The WHOLE point of the matter is ALL the evidence became =
>tai=3D
>> >nte=3D3D
>> >> >d w=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >hen
>> >> >> >> >> >> >the DPD gave it to the FBI on 11/22/23/63 BEFORE the FBI =
>had
>> >> >> >> >> >> >JURISDICTION! =3D3D3D3D3DA0This in effect NULL AND VOIDED=
> all =3D
>> >of it=3D3D
>> >> > from=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > a co=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >urt
>> >> >> >> >> >> >of law perspective.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Untrue.
>>
> th=3D
>> >is
>> >> >> >> >> >case the body, to those NOT in legal jurisdiction you ruin t=
>he =3D
>> >CHA=3D3D
>> >> >IN
>> >> >> >> >> >OF CUSTODY! Do you even understand what this means? I doubt =
>it =3D
>> >as =3D3D
>> >> >ALL
>> >> >> >> >> >you WC shills and trolls lie about this part.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Untrue. You will continue to refuse to cite for this...
>>
>> >> >> >> >It is common law, there is NO need to cite for it.
>>
>e f=3D
>> >or =3D3D
>> >> >it.
>>
>> >> >> >It called chain of evidence and when you give it to someone NOT in=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >"chain" you have violated the law.
>>
>> >> >> Are you really *this* much of a moron?
>>
>> >> >NO, but YOU are!
>>
>is =3D
>> >no
>> >> >> 'pre-determined' list of people who are "allowed" to have possessio=
>n o=3D
>> >f
>> >> >> evidence.
>>
>> >> >LOL!! This moron doesn't even understand the law! The "predetermined
>> >> >list" is set BY JURISDICTION!
>>
>> >> Then you should be able to cite for such an assertion.
>>
>> >I don't cite for the truth.
>>
>> Nor, quite obviously, do you cite for lies.
>
>It is NOT a lie,
And yet, you can't cite for it. Why is that, stupid?
>and you will be shown for the lying WC shill you are
>in a NEW "Provable Lies of Ben Holmes Post" here in a few minutes.
>
>YOU have shown what a lying WC shill you are with stand as any first
>year law student knows the law of Jurisdiction!
Then by all means, bring this "first year law student" on... let *him* cite the
law you refuse to cite.
>Why do you think
>folks have to be SENT BACK to the jurisction of the crime when they
>are caught elsewhere Bendsie?
Has nothing to do with a predetermined list, moron. Nor your mythical
requirement of someone from the jurisdiction personally following evidence.
>>>NOW, tell us which DPD officer went to
>> >D.C. to maintain the chain of custody
>>
>> Not needed.
>
>Liar, aren't you?
To demonstrate this, all you'd have to do is cite the law.
But you can't... so lurkers will know who the *real* liar is, won't they?
>I'm saving all of these comments too because when
>the liar is shown the truth he will lie about saying this stuff.
Save away. The *TRUTH* is that you cannot cite for "requirements" that don't
exist.
>> >since the FBI had NO
>> >jurisdicition. =A0Tell us when LBJ gave them jurisdiction Boy Bendsie!
>>
>> Which one of them wore the red cape? You know, of course, that anyone
>> handling evidence in the official "chain of custody" is required to
>> wear a red cape.
>
>This is what we get INSTEAD of the honest truth!
This *IS* the truth... simply look it up. It's in the paragraph right after the
requirement for someone of the same jurisdiction to personally travel with
evidence going out of the jurisdiction, and just before the paragraph of the law
that references the "predetermined" list of those allowed to handle the
evidence. (Three paragraphs down you'll find the reference to child molesters
not being legally allowed to touch the evidence)
>Bendsie is like all
>LNer trolls though, they use strawmen to hide the truth as they have
>NONE of it on their side.
>
>It is a simple question,and a highly important one too, but Bendsie
>plays games instead of answering it.
I *DID* answer it. Whine all you want.
>> I'd cite for that fact, but you must already know it, it's in the
>> same section of law that details the "predetermined list" of those
>> allowed to touch the evidence in a "jurisdiction".
>
>Too bad the FBi did NOT have jurisdiction on 11/22-11/23/63, huh?
Murder of a President isn't a felony?
>IF they did, they could have taken LHO with them, why didn't they Boy
>Bendsie?
Perhaps because he was already under arrest and detained, moron?
>> In fact, the paragraph right *under* that one specifically states
>> that child molesters are not allowed to be in the "chain of custody."
>
>Don't bring up YOUR sickness to distract. We all know you are lying
>you sick, perverted piece of crap, and I will show it in a few. It
>will come from ONE of the FBI's very own too!
I rather doubt that quoting someone that *YOU* label a liar is going to be
convincing to anyone.
>> >> But not only can you *NOT*, you won't even try.
>>
>> >I don't have to cite for the LAW WC troll!
>>
>> I would... but since you won't, I'll just refer to what *else*
>> that same law that you refuse to cite says.
>
>The law is the law liar.
Yep... it is. Red cape and all...
>> >The law in 1963 made the
>> >murder of JFK a STATE and local crime, NOT a federal one!
>>
>> Was it a felony, by any chance?
>
>Yes, but show us the 1963 law that said ALL felonies automatically
>became a FEDERAL CRIME!
The 1951 law said that the FBI held jurisdiction over felonies... do you suppose
that a felony is automatically a "FEDERAL CRIME?"
>> >The FBI had
>> >NO juridiction UNTIL LBJ gave it to them, thus they could NOT handle
>> >evidence without the proper DPD officers being there!
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, the FBI *DOES* have jurisdiction over felonies.
>> Not sole jurisdiction, but they *do* by law have it.
>
>LOL!! YOU are a liar as the FBI would have NO time to investigate
>EVERY felony in the U.S. Boy, this guy lies more than a rug in the
>Taj Mahal, huh?
>
>Show us this law, and I want it circa 1963 too!
Title 18, section 3052. Last amended in 1951.
Ouch!
>> >Tell us which DPD officer(s) went to D.C on 11/22-11/23/63 Boy
>> >Bendsie!
>>
>> The one wearing the red cape, of course.
>
>Strawmen won't save you!
Neither will the red cape. The law specifically forbids child molesters from
the chain of custody.
>> >He won't.
>>
>> Just did.
>
>Strawmen won't save you, you lying WC shill troll!
Neither will whining, moron.
>> >> For anyone who doesn't understand the legal definition of "chain of
>> >> custody", here's merely one citation:
>>
>> >>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chain+of+Custody
>>
>> >I understand it
>>
>> No, you clearly *DON'T*. Since you refuse to agree with it.
>
>I understand it, that is why I know someone had to accompany the
>evidence since the FBI did NOT have jurisdiction!
You forgot, they were wearing the required red cape.
>YOU are the one
>lying about that to save your beloved WC.
>
>
>> >and the point is NO one who had JURISDICTION in this
>> >crime accompanied the evidence to the FBI who had NO jursidiction.
>> >Thus the chain of custody was violated.
>>
>> That is *NOT* what the cite I gave supports.
>
>Sure does,
It also supports the red cape.
>as the cite you gave us is ASSUMING all involved have
>jurisdiction,
Just as it "assumes" the wearing of the red cape.
>but in this case the FBI did NOT,
Prove that they failed to wear their red cape.
>thus a person who did
>have jurisdiction had to STAY WITH THE EVIDENCE TO MAINTAIN THE CHAIN
>OF CUSTODY!
Not required when the red cape is worn.
>Am I really this dumb or just a really bad liar?
Both, I would judge...
>> >I have read this and let's revisit NUMBER TWO again, okay?
>>
>> >Quote on
>>
>> >2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had
>> >possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time
>> >it is presented in court;
>>
>> Yep... perfectly understandable. =Of course, *YOU* don't understand it.
>
>Show us where it says you can give said evidence to someone with NO
>jurisdiction.
Show us where it says that anyone *other* than Santa Claus is allowed to have
"continuous possession".
>Why NOT just give the evidence to YOU for analysis?
Oddly enough, it's happened. Court martial, USMC. 1980.
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >Who went to D.C. for the DPD Bendsie?
>>
>> The guy in the red cape.
>
>Strawmen won't save you WC shill troll!
Neither will the guy in the red cape.
>> >See it says testimony is
>> >accepted from "individuals who HAS HAD POSSESSION OF THE EVIDENCE FROM
>> >THE TIME IT IS SEIZED TO THE TIME IT IS PRESENTED IN COURT!"
>>
>> Yep... absolutely true.
>
>AND HAD JURSIDICTION!
AND HAD THE RED CAPE!
AND WORE SNEAKERS!
AND USED ONLY WHITE SOCKS!
AND WORE NO WATCH OTHER THAN A TIMEX!
>Why does Bendsie lie about this part? Why is
>he sooooo determined to keep the WC's case alive? Oh that is right,
>because he is a WC shill troll!
Whining about the law won't help.
>> >When the DPD gave the evidence to the FBI without sending all the
>> >officers who "discovered it" they BROKE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY!
>>
>> No, they didn't.
>
>Yes they did WC troll.
No, they didn't.
>> Moron, aren't you?
>
>Lying WC troll, aren't you? Marine Corps washout, aren't you?
Moron, aren't you?
>> >> >IF you are not part of the jurisdiction
>> >> >YOU have NO right handling evidence!
>>
>> >> You're a liar, Robsie. Nor does your assertion even make sense.
>>
>> >See NUMBER two of your OWN cite you stinking WC shill liar!
>>
>> Sorry stupid, my citation does not support your lie.
>
>It sure does, as it ASSUMES everyone involved has JURISDICTION, and it
>this case they did not.
It also ASSUMES that everyone involved wore the red cape, which is required by
law, and thus makes it okay.
>> >> >It is like buying a new car and seeing a dent, but NOT saying anythin=
>g
>> >> >at the time. YOU come back the next day and what do you think they
>> >> >will tell you? That it happened AFTER you drove the car off the lot!
>> >> >When you give evidence to folks who do NOT have jurisdiction you
>> >> >VIOLATE the chain of custody!
>>
>> >> This has nothing to do with "chain of custody".
>>
>> >Liar, aren't you? =A0Which FBI agents who handled the evidence (Latona,
>> >Shaneyfelt, Drain, Frazier, etc....) ACTUALLY FOUND THE EVIDENCE????
>>
>> They don't have to, stupid.
>
>THEY DO IF THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION LIAR!
They wore the red cape. Just as the law states.
>> >> >Please do learn our legal system LNer troll!
>>
>> >> Indeed, I apparently know much more about it than you do. *MY* definit=
>ion of
>> >> "chain of custody" is identical with the legal definition I cited.
>>
>> >YOU CAN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND OR LIE ABOUT YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS! YOU are
>> >one of the dumbest Trolls on here next to Walt!
>>
>> Oh, I think I'll leave it to lurkers to judge that one... :)
>
>I'm find with that one too, but show us where your defintion dealt
>with GIVING EVIDENCE TO SOMEONE WITH NO JURISDICTION! Without that
>part, and it does NOT have that part, your definition is worthless for
>your point.
Show us where it mentions the red cape? For without that part, it's not legal.
>> >> You will *REFUSE* to cite, since no citation is possible that supports=
> your
>> >> silly ideas.
>>
>> >YOUR own cite supported ME!
>
>> No it doesn't, stupid.
>
>Sure did, since it did NOT mention giving evidence to folks with NO
>jurisdiction and that being okay!
Nor did it mention the red cape. And you *KNOW* that's required by law...
>> It makes *NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER* to any "predetermined list" of
>> those in a jurisdiction who are allowed to be within the 'chain of
>> custody'.
>
>Exactly the point moron!
A point that escape you, moron.
Only a moron would point to a definition of "chain of custody", and say: 'Ah
hah! It doesn't say what I've been lying about, so it can't be the real
definition!'
An *honest* moron would at least attempt to cite *something*...
>> >Presidential assassination was NOT a
>> >federal crime in 1963
>>
>> Was it a felony?
>
>Felonies are handled by local and state police, NOT the FBI moron.
Title 18, section 3052. (I predict that before you ever look it up, you'll be
sick of seeing me cite it.)
>Nowadays the FBI can muscle their way into more circumstances because
>of all the 9/11 laws, but the main point is they do NOT get inolved in
>all felonies. A FEDERAL LAW has to be broken for them to have
>jurisdiction.
Do you suppose that it's not against "federal law" to murder someone?
>> >so the FBI had NO legal rights
>>
>> Title 18, United States Code, Section 3052 says otherwise...
>
>LOL!!! Why not list it for us.
I just did, stupid.
If you need me to QUOTE it, just ask. Although only a moron would take longer
than 10 seconds to be reading it with a simple Google search...
>So Bendsie thinks the FBI has
>jurisdiction in all felonies that do NOT cross state lines, huh?
>LOL!!
Read the law and weep, moron...
>> >to touch or
>> >handle evidence WITHOUT THE DPD OFFICERS WHO FOUND IT BEING PRESENT!
>>
>> Untrue. Nor can you cite for such a ridiculous thing.
>
>It is the law moron.
Untrue. Nor can you cite for such a ridiculous thing.
>> >Once LBJ gave them jurisdiction this changed but by then it was TOO
>> >LATE as they contominated 95% of the evidence!
>>
>> Well, good for them, I say! Perhaps if you ask nicely, they'll "contominate"
>> you as well...
>
>Sure, when one is a liar like Bendsie all they have is spelling issues
>and strawmen to use. Typical troll behavior.
Well, good for them, I say! Perhaps if you ask nicely, they'll "contominate" you
as well...
>> >> >> >When you make Walt cite for his claims I will be happy to do so as
>> >> >> >well, but until then, I am through with your double standards.
>>
>> >> >> Such reasoning excuses all of your faults, doesn't it?
>>
>> >> >Hey, I'm trying to be FAIR UNLIKE YOU! =3DA0IF I have to provide cite=
>s,
>> >> >and everyone else you argue with has to provide them then your
>> >> >soulmate needs to also.
>>
>> >> Walt has nothing to do with you refusing to provide a citation for
>> >> something you asserted to me.
>>
>> >It sure does liar, you claim you POINT OUT to folks when they can't
>> >support their own assertions and NO one fails to do this more than
>> >Walt, but you NEVER point it out to him!
>>
>> >Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> Walt has nothing to do with you refusing to provide a citation for
>> something you asserted to me.
>
>Liar, aren't you? YOU said you "point out" when someone can't support
>their own assertions and NO one does this more than Walt, but you
>NEVER point it out to him. YOU are a liar Bendsie. Tis that simple.
Walt has nothing to do with you refusing to provide a citation for something you
asserted to me.
>> >> >> >> >I will think about doing so however when YOU MAKE YOUR LOVER WA=
>LT =3D
>> >DO
>> >> >> >> >SO!
>>
>> >> >> >> Walt can't save you.
>>
>> >> >> >OF course NOT, he is too busy with you in bed!
>>
>> >> >> Walt can't save you.
>>
>> >> >He is too busy with you to save anyone!
>>
>> >> Walt can't save you.
>>
>> >I'm NOT his type, he likes Marine Corps washouts I hear!
>>
>> Walt can't save you.
>
>He is into you big time from what I hear, but he has to compete with
>YOUR sickness for kids!
Walt can't save you.
>> >> >> >> >See, he shouldn't be allowed NEVER to cite and yet you constant=
>ly =3D
>> >har=3D3D
>> >> >p
>> >> >> >> >on us to do so.
>>
>> >> >> >> What someone else does or does not do cannot explain *YOUR* fail=
>ure=3D
>> > to=3D3D
>> >> > cite.
>>
>> >> >> >It is law Bendsie,
>>
>> >> >> No, it is not. You're lying again. You cannot cite this mythical "l=
>aw"=3D
>> >.
>> >> >> If this *were* a law, it's being broken every single day by law enf=
>orc=3D
>> >ement
>> >> >> agencies in every state.
>>
>> >> >YOU are making yourself look very dumb (if that is possible, I have
>> >> >suspected you are really a Marine trying to be a rocket scientist for
>> >> >a long time now) as you have NO UNDERSTANDING OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.
>> >> >But hey, hold your head up, NO LNer does!
>>
>> >> The *FACT* that local PD's send evidence to the FBI routinely
>> >> demonstrates that you're "understanding" is a joke.
>>
>> >YOUR OWN cite makes it clear -- you have to send the person who found
>> >the evidence with it
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
>NOT as dumb as you moron. Why not give us a cite that mentions one
>org NOT HAVING JURISDICTION?
Perhaps because it has nothing to do with "chain of custody?"
>YOU gave us a cite that ONLY applies to
>everyone having it that touches the evidence.
As long as they wore the red cape, of course...
And were not convicted of child molestation...
>YOU are comparing
>apples and oranges you stinkin' moronic liar.
"Chain of Custody" is "Chain of Custody". At least under U.S. law.
But feel free to cite anytime, stupid.