If the chain of custody is broken, the evidence is inadmissible

[Gil Jesus]

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4

Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?

There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 04:12:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
>

>There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence.

And you're a liar. But we already knew that...

As just *one* example, give us the chain of custody for the jacket
that was "found."

But you won't. You can't. There is *NO* chain of custody for the
jacket.

Ditto with many other pieces of evidence.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:46:37 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4

"If the glove doesn't fit, YOU MUST ACQUIT!"

---O.J. Simpson attorney Johnny Cochrane


"If the chain of custody is contaminated, then OSWALD IS EXONERATED!

---Make-believe internet attorney and Lee Oswald Fan Club President, Gil Jesus, a/k/a Fish Part Messiah

[robert johnson]

delusional lone nutter pigs hate to be confronted about the chain of evidence as it tears their little fantasy apart.

END OFF!!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 07:16:26 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:46:37?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4

Chuckles couldn't answer my challenge to Corbutt either.

So Chuckles *knows* that Corbutt lied, but simply sticks his head in
the sand and pretends he never saw Corbutt's lie.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:09:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> So Chuckles *knows* that Corbutt lied, but simply sticks his head in the sand and pretends he never saw Corbutt's lie.

You sure his head is in the sand ?
I thought it was up his ass.

Here ya go Chuckles:

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:30:06 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> I pointed out there is no conflict between the passage you highlighted and the SBT. Based on the highlighted conclusion, JFK and JBC could have been
> hit by the same or separate bullets. Either possibility is compatible with it.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uIMCuM4QmvA/m/RrdYkevlAgAJ

The document in question, Page 1 of the FBI Summary Report:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Hoover's phone call to LBJ proves I was right about the FBI Summary Report saying three shots were fired and all three hit the victims.
He told Johnson the same thing.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4

So yes, there WAS a conflict between the Summary Report and the SBT.
And as usual, Corbett made a statement that he never backed up with evidence and which was not true.
He was relying on the same "reasoning" as his retarded compa ( the stump who posts here under the name ) Bud.

Now the world knows who has the "poor analytical skills" and who posts evidence to back up his claims.

This is what happens when trolls are willing to argue about topics they have no knowledge of.
They always look stupid in the end.
You'd think that they'd learn their lesson for the next time, but they don't.
They'll make the same mistakes over and over again.
They really ARE that stupid.

[robert johnson]

WHO IS A FATTER MORON

BUD
CHUCKLES
VON PENIS

THRILL ME WITH YOUR ANSWERS

[Steven Galbraith]

Notice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on unnamed sources and never hesitate in doing so. JFK supposedly said he was going to breakup the CIA. And that was their motive. When did he say this? To who? What did he do to carry the threat out? Who in the CIA knew this? They can't answer any of this or even care.
And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.

[robert johnson]

NOTICE THAT LONE NUTTER PIGS KEEP GETTING BLASTED WITH REAL EVIDENCE AND THEY HAVE NO ANSWER WHEN THE PAPERWORK IS PUT IN FRONT OF THEM
IT IS CALLED DEFEAT

[Steven Galbraith]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

I've read/visited numerous sites where controversial events are discussed. The Lindbergh baby kidnapping, Sacco and Vanzetti, others. None of the participants in the discussion use "chain of custody" questions when discussing what happened, when trying to reconstruct what took place. That's a legal question, one that lawyers would use. It's not one that people discussing historic events use. We've all read history books. Do you recall a historian *ever* saying he or she wouldn't use some evidence in trying to reconstruct an event because the "chain" was broken? Sure, they will document the sources and mention questions about the reliability. But not use it at all? That's silly.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Notice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy?

Name it.


But you won't... you're a coward who cannot debate with knowledgeable
critics.

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:49:53 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:09:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > So Chuckles *knows* that Corbutt lied, but simply sticks his head in the sand and pretends he never saw Corbutt's lie.
> You sure his head is in the sand ?
> I thought it was up his ass.
>
> Here ya go Chuckles:
>
> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:30:06 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > I pointed out there is no conflict between the passage you highlighted and the SBT. Based on the highlighted conclusion, JFK and JBC could have been
> > hit by the same or separate bullets. Either possibility is compatible with it.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uIMCuM4QmvA/m/RrdYkevlAgAJ

Gil has never been able to explain how the passage he cited conflicts with the SBT, because it
doesn't. Gil just keeps doubling down on his lie.

>
> The document in question, Page 1 of the FBI Summary Report:
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

According to the passage you cited, "three shots rang out, two bullets struck President Kennedy,
and one wounded Governor Connally." According to the SBT, "three shots rang out, two bullets
struck President Kennedy, and one wounded Governor Connally."

>
> Hoover's phone call to LBJ proves I was right about the FBI Summary Report saying three shots were fired and all three hit the victims.
> He told Johnson the same thing.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4

That's nice, Gil, but my remarks did not address the FBI Summary Report nor what Hoover told
LBJ. They were directed specifically at the passage you cited, which is not in conflict with the
SBT.

>
> So yes, there WAS a conflict between the Summary Report and the SBT.

Yes there was, but not in the passage you cited.

> And as usual, Corbett made a statement that he never backed up with evidence and which was not true.

You provided the evidence with the page from the FBI Summary Report which you falsely
claimed conflicts with the SBT. It does not.

> He was relying on the same "reasoning" as his retarded compa ( the stump who posts here under the name ) Bud.

I know the concept of reasoning is foreign to you so it does not surprise me that you can't
recognize it when you see it.

>
> Now the world knows who has the "poor analytical skills" and who posts evidence to back up his claims.

Not only poor analytical skills but very bad reading comprehension. I pointed out the fallacy
in your position before with a simple three question quiz, but I will do so again. According to
the passage you cited, "three shots rang out, two bullets struck President Kennedy, and one
wounded Governor Connally."

According to the SBT:
How many shots did Oswald fire? Answer 3
How many shots hit JFK? Answer 2
How many shots hit JBC? Answer 1

Once again I ask you, Gil, knowing full well you won't answer, where's the conflict?

>
> This is what happens when trolls are willing to argue about topics they have no knowledge of.
> They always look stupid in the end.
> You'd think that they'd learn their lesson for the next time, but they don't.
> They'll make the same mistakes over and over again.
> They really ARE that stupid.

You're too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:54:51 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.

Stop it Professor Numbnut.
You're hurting my feelings.
I wonder why there's no Professor Steven Galbraith listed on line in any college History Department ANYWHERE.
You must be one of those "absent-minded professors" teaching a course on the JFK assassination at the School of Hard Knocks.
ROFLMAO

Since when does someone have to follow legal procedures to have an opinion ?
The Russians ( and much of the foreign press ) were expressing an opinion at that time.
Much like you and your Nutter pals do every day.
The only difference is, you people are never right.

The Warren Commission, however, was under a mandate to build a case in which "the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted AT TRIAL".
A criminal TRIAL was the standard they were supposed to be presenting the evidence by.
Did they do that ?
Did they follow judicial procedure ?

Did they allow the hearings to be one of an adversarial format ?
Did they disallow the testimony of Marina Oswald ?
Did they show the evidence to the witnesses who found it and have them testify as to it's authenticity ?
Did they reject evidence that was not autheticated by the persons who found it ?
Did they reject evidence that had Chain-of Possession problems ?
Did they allow for a cross-examination of the witnesses ?

All of the above would have been followed in a criminal trial. And since that was the standard, why wasn't it followed ?

Do yourself a favor and get your head out of your ass, "Professor".
Your attacks on me affect me only if I value your opinion, which I don't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:49:51 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:09:59?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> So Chuckles *knows* that Corbutt lied, but simply sticks his head in the sand and pretends he never saw Corbutt's lie.
>
>You sure his head is in the sand ?
>I thought it was up his ass.
>
>Here ya go Chuckles:
>

>On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:30:06?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> I pointed out there is no conflict between the passage you highlighted and the SBT. Based on the highlighted conclusion, JFK and JBC could have been
>> hit by the same or separate bullets. Either possibility is compatible with it.
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uIMCuM4QmvA/m/RrdYkevlAgAJ
>
>The document in question, Page 1 of the FBI Summary Report:
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png
>
>Hoover's phone call to LBJ proves I was right about the FBI Summary Report saying three shots were fired and all three hit the victims.
>He told Johnson the same thing.
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4
>
>So yes, there WAS a conflict between the Summary Report and the SBT.
>And as usual, Corbett made a statement that he never backed up with evidence and which was not true.
>He was relying on the same "reasoning" as his retarded compa ( the stump who posts here under the name ) Bud.
>
>Now the world knows who has the "poor analytical skills" and who posts evidence to back up his claims.
>
>This is what happens when trolls are willing to argue about topics they have no knowledge of.
>They always look stupid in the end.
>You'd think that they'd learn their lesson for the next time, but they don't.
>They'll make the same mistakes over and over again.
>They really ARE that stupid.

Here's the EXACT quote that Chuckles & Corbutt refuse to cite:

******************************************************************
> Corroborated by the FBI
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Why do you keep citing an FBI report that doesn't say JFK and JBC were
hit by separate shots. The highlighted passage does not conflict with
the SBT. More looking at things incorrectly.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vBRalRe1y7s/m/DUGOyc2RAgAJ
*******************************************************************

Notice that it's crystal clear that Corbutt was talking about the FBI
report, not merely one paragraph.

The FBI report DOES INDEED say that JFK and Connally were hit by
separate shots, as Von Penis admitted.

Gil has been stating the truth all along, and out of all the
believers, only Von Penis agreed (but couldn't bear to tell Corbutt he
got caught lying.)

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:32:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> The FBI report DOES INDEED say that JFK and Connally were hit by
> separate shots, as Von Penis admitted.
>
> Gil has been stating the truth all along, and out of all the
> believers, only Von Penis agreed (but couldn't bear to tell Corbutt he
> got caught lying.)

Right now they're in damage control mode.
Expect them to start with the personal attacks or trying to change the subject.

[robert johnson]

ONLY BECAUSE SMALL COCKED LONE NUTTER CUNTS ARE AS BAD AS BRIAN DOYLE

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:22:40 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:54:51 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.
> Stop it Professor Numbnut.
> You're hurting my feelings.
> I wonder why there's no Professor Steven Galbraith listed on line in any college History Department ANYWHERE.
> You must be one of those "absent-minded professors" teaching a course on the JFK assassination at the School of Hard Knocks.
> ROFLMAO
>
> Since when does someone have to follow legal procedures to have an opinion ?
> The Russians ( and much of the foreign press ) were expressing an opinion at that time.
> Much like you and your Nutter pals do every day.
> The only difference is, you people are never right.
>
> The Warren Commission, however, was under a mandate to build a case in which "the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted AT TRIAL".

You're lying Gil. That was the Katzenbach memo. That was not the directive to the WC.

> A criminal TRIAL was the standard they were supposed to be presenting the evidence by.

Cite?

> Did they do that ?
> Did they follow judicial procedure ?

Why would they. It was a fact finding body, not a criminal trial.

>
> Did they allow the hearings to be one of an adversarial format ?

Of course they didn't. That would be stupid. In order to have an adversarial format, you need to
have adversaries. Were they supposed to predetermine who the adversaries were?

> Did they disallow the testimony of Marina Oswald ?

Why would a fact finding body do something that stupid?

> Did they show the evidence to the witnesses who found it and have them testify as to it's authenticity ?

Totally unnecessary.

> Did they reject evidence that was not autheticated by the persons who found it ?

Not even a requirement if it was a trial.

> Did they reject evidence that had Chain-of Possession problems ?

The chain-of-possession problems are imaginary.

> Did they allow for a cross-examination of the witnesses ?

Once again, Gil, it was a fact finding body, not a criminal trial.

>
> All of the above would have been followed in a criminal trial. And since that was the standard, why wasn't it followed ?

Because it wasn't a criminal trial, dumbass.

>
> Do yourself a favor and get your head out of your ass, "Professor".
> Your attacks on me affect me only if I value your opinion, which I don't.

Gil does seem to have experience with cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:22:40?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:54:51?AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>> > And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.
>> Stop it Professor Numbnut.
>> You're hurting my feelings.
>> I wonder why there's no Professor Steven Galbraith listed on line in any college History Department ANYWHERE.
>> You must be one of those "absent-minded professors" teaching a course on the JFK assassination at the School of Hard Knocks.
>> ROFLMAO
>>
>> Since when does someone have to follow legal procedures to have an opinion ?
>> The Russians ( and much of the foreign press ) were expressing an opinion at that time.
>> Much like you and your Nutter pals do every day.
>> The only difference is, you people are never right.
>>
>> The Warren Commission, however, was under a mandate to build a case in which "the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted AT TRIAL".
>
>You're lying Gil.

When you're a PROVEN liar, that assertion carries no weight.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:05:54 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>I've read/visited numerous sites where controversial events are discussed.

No one cares what you read. We care what you lie about...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:15:02 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:49:53?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:09:59?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > So Chuckles *knows* that Corbutt lied, but simply sticks his head in the sand and pretends he never saw Corbutt's lie.
>> You sure his head is in the sand ?
>> I thought it was up his ass.
>>
>> Here ya go Chuckles:
>>

>> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:30:06?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> > I pointed out there is no conflict between the passage you highlighted and the SBT. Based on the highlighted conclusion, JFK and JBC could have been
>> > hit by the same or separate bullets. Either possibility is compatible with it.
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uIMCuM4QmvA/m/RrdYkevlAgAJ
>

>Gil has never been able to explain how the passage ...


Stop right there.

Although you CHANGED in later posts, your original was on the FBI
Summary Report.


Here's your ORIGINAL claim :

******************************************************************
> Corroborated by the FBI
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Why do you keep citing an FBI report that doesn't say JFK and JBC were
hit by separate shots. The highlighted passage does not conflict with
the SBT. More looking at things incorrectly.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vBRalRe1y7s/m/DUGOyc2RAgAJ
*******************************************************************

Keep right on lying, Corbutt, I'll keep proving you a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:50:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Corbutt has already done the most important thing - he refuses (Like
the cowards Von Penis and Steven) from responding to me.

But I'm not trying to prove any thing to *THEM*...

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:03:06 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Gil does seem to have experience with cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.

I may not be a proctologist, but I know an asshole when I see one.
And I'm looking at you.

[John Corbett]

You've looked through yours from the inside.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:21:37 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 2:57:52?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:03:06?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> > Gil does seem to have experience with cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.
>> I may not be a proctologist, but I know an asshole when I see one.
>> And I'm looking at you.

Corbutt is well named...

[Bud]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4

Who rules on chain of custody issues?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:14:49 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 04:12:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
> >
> >There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence.
> And you're a liar. But we already knew that...
>
> As just *one* example, give us the chain of custody for the jacket
> that was "found."

You are simply lying. There is film of the jacket in the custody of the DPD.

> But you won't. You can't. There is *NO* chain of custody for the
> jacket.

The authorities that handled it put their initials on it. There`s your chain of custody.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gray_Zipper_Jacket_Belonging_to_Lee_Harvey_Oswald_-_NARA_-_305140_%28page_4%29.gif

> Ditto with many other pieces of evidence.

You lie about other evidence also.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Bud]

Owned him again, Josie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 15:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[joe darcy]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:54:51 AM UTC+11, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
> >
> > Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
> >
> > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
> > that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
> > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
> Notice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on unnamed sources and never hesitate in doing so.

Steven, please clarify for me. Are you saying that statements do/should have a "chain of custody"? How does that work.

Also, have you never read any WC testimony or FBI reports? The volumes are riddled with both lone nut and conspiracy hearsay. The rules of evidence and justice itself went out the window as soon as Oswald was murdered.

>JFK supposedly said he was going to breakup the CIA. And that was their motive.

Marina supposedly refused to reconcile with him and that was Oswald's motive.

When did he say this? To who? What did he do to carry the threat out? Who in the CIA knew this? They can't answer any of this or even care.

It was quoted in an April 25 1966 NYT article citing an anonymous source. He may or may not have said it. What is known is that he was not happy with the CIA, making the quote seem at least possible.

Meanwhile the "Marina" motive for Oswald has no legs at all. The evidence shows they were planning on getting their own apartment again - per Ruth Paine testimony.

> And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.

Both sides do it, whether you admit or not. Parker might be obnoxious sometimes but I tend to agree with him when he rails against the CT/LN coin.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

In the Parker universe, the one and only truth is that Oswald is as innocent as a new born babe. This actually is the flip side of the Nutter coin. To the Nutters, Oswald is the only guilty person. To the Parkers, Oswald is the only innocent person.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

The Parkers and the Nutters both are anti-conspiracy. With Parker, everybody except Oswald is guilty. If everybody is guilty, then it is not a conspiracy. With the Nutters, only Oswald is guilty, so there is no conspiracy. The Parkers and the Nutters are both on the same side, the Conspiracy Denial side. Because that's what matters, still 60 years later, the conspiracy. The Parkers and the Nutters deny the conspiracy that murdered JFK. They both protect the murderers and their heirs.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
> that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
> Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.

You're lying again.
Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:47 PM UTC-4, joe darcy wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:54:51 AM UTC+11, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
> > >
> > > Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
> > >
> > > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
> > > that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
> > > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
> > Notice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on unnamed sources and never hesitate in doing so.
> Steven, please clarify for me. Are you saying that statements do/should have a "chain of custody"? How does that work.
>
> Also, have you never read any WC testimony or FBI reports? The volumes are riddled with both lone nut and conspiracy hearsay. The rules of evidence and justice itself went out the window as soon as Oswald was murdered.

As they should have. Our criminal justice system has a duel role. Determine the truth while
protecting the rights of the accused. Sometimes, those are at cross purposes. The WC was
not a criminal trial. It was a fact finding body. It's sole purpose was to determine the truth. It
had no power to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. Had they discovered evidence that
someone other than Oswald was involved in the crime, that evidence would have been turned
over to the appropriate prosecutors who would have brought charges against those people.
A trial would have been held and the rules of evidence would have applied.

> >JFK supposedly said he was going to breakup the CIA. And that was their motive.
> Marina supposedly refused to reconcile with him and that was Oswald's motive.
> When did he say this? To who? What did he do to carry the threat out? Who in the CIA knew this? They can't answer any of this or even care.

Any discussion of Oswald's motive is guesswork since only he knew why he did what he did.
It is not necessary to determine motive in order to prosecute a person for a crime although
establishing motive can be helpful when prosecuting someone for premeditated murder.

> It was quoted in an April 25 1966 NYT article citing an anonymous source. He may or may not have said it. What is known is that he was not happy with the CIA, making the quote seem at least possible.
>
> Meanwhile the "Marina" motive for Oswald has no legs at all. The evidence shows they were planning on getting their own apartment again - per Ruth Paine testimony.

Completely irrelevant to the question of whether Oswald was the assassin. Whatever plans
he might have had, he ditched those in order to kill JFK.

> > And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.
> Both sides do it, whether you admit or not. Parker might be obnoxious sometimes but I tend to agree with him when he rails against the CT/LN coin.

Confirmation bias is something we are all guilty of to a degree. The important thing is to
recognize it whoever engages in it, including when it is ourselves.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 5:27:19 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
> > that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
> > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
> You're lying again.

Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie. You simply declare it and expect it to be accepted.
Since you have appointed yourself trial judge as well as defense counsel, you always get a
favorable ruling.

> Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?

https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm#:~:text=Oswald%20was%20last%20seen%20cutting%20through%20a%20parking,was%20wearing%20at%20the%20time%20of%20his%20arrest.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:32:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie. You simply declare it and expect it to be accepted.
> Since you have appointed yourself trial judge as well as defense counsel, you always get a
> favorable ruling.
> > Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?
> https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm#:~:text=Oswald%20was%20last%20seen%20cutting%20through%20a%20parking,was%20wearing%20at%20the%20time%20of%20his%20arrest.

Yeah, you lied. You said:

> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation

> > that spells out every person who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT. Whom they gave it to.

> > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.

I asked you who found Oswald's jacket.
You posted a link to Dale Myer's website that only says the jacket was found by police.
Which officer found it and show us the "documentation" you say exists proving, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:08:49 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:32:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie. You simply declare it and expect it to be accepted.
> > Since you have appointed yourself trial judge as well as defense counsel, you always get a
> > favorable ruling.
> > > Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?
> > https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm#:~:text=Oswald%20was%20last%20seen%20cutting%20through%20a%20parking,was%20wearing%20at%20the%20time%20of%20his%20arrest.
> Yeah, you lied. You said:

What did I say that was a lie? When I accuse you of lying, I spell it out.

>
> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
> > > that spells out every person who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT. Whom they gave it to.
> > > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
> I asked you who found Oswald's jacket.
> You posted a link to Dale Myer's website that only says the jacket was found by police.
> Which officer found it and show us the "documentation" you say exists proving, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."

Had the case gone to trial, there would have been no problem documenting the chain of custody
from the cop who found it to every person who handled it along the way. Another of your silly
red herrings that you come up with to disregard the rock solid evidence that you know establishes
Your client as the assassin. You need excuses to dismiss all the evidence because all the
evidence implicates your client.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:37:04 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< more bullshit that doesn't answer the question >

So I see you're not going to answer the question.

1. You said, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 1.

2. You said, "THERE IS DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 2.

I've asked you to provide the name of the officer who found Oswald's jacket and the documentation of it
and you've failed to do so.


3. You claim that, "There is documentation that spells out EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE."
Again, your words, not mine.
That's lie # 3.

The two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene bore the initials “RD”.
This is revealed in the CSSS form the Dallas Police used when they released the four spent shells to FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11-28-63.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png

The initials “RD” do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
In addition, no police officer with the intitals “RD” testified before the Warren Commission.

So who is “RD”? And where is the documentation identifying him in the chain of custody ?

Will you answer this question or will you run from it like you did with the first one ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 03:28:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:47?PM UTC-4, joe darcy wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:54:51?AM UTC+11, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

>>>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
>>>>
>>>> Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
>>>>
>>>> There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
>>>> that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
>>>> Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
>>> Notice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on unnamed sources and never hesitate in doing so.
>> Steven, please clarify for me. Are you saying that statements do/should have a "chain of custody"? How does that work.
>>
>> Also, have you never read any WC testimony or FBI reports? The volumes are riddled with both lone nut and conspiracy hearsay. The rules of evidence and justice itself went out the window as soon as Oswald was murdered.
>
>As they should have. Our criminal justice system has a duel role. Determine the truth while
>protecting the rights of the accused. Sometimes, those are at cross purposes. The WC was
>not a criminal trial. It was a fact finding body. It's sole purpose was to determine the truth.

This is also the sole purpose of the American Justice system. I'm
amused that you think that the protection of inherent "rights" are
contrary to the truth.

>It had no power to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with finding the truth.

> Had they discovered evidence that
>someone other than Oswald was involved in the crime, that evidence would have been turned
>over to the appropriate prosecutors who would have brought charges against those people.
>A trial would have been held and the rules of evidence would have applied.

You clearly don't understand the justice system...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 02:24:19 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
>> that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
>> Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
>

>Really ?

>Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?

This is a question that PROVES beyond all doubt that Corbutt's a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 02:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Easy to predict, Corbutt won't answer that question.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 03:32:51 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 5:27:19?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
>>> that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
>>> Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
>> You're lying again.
>
>Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie. You simply declare it and expect it to be accepted.
>Since you have appointed yourself trial judge as well as defense counsel, you always get a
>favorable ruling.

You're lying AGAIN. It's simplistic to explain why what you said is a
lie. You made a statement that is PROVABLY contrary to the facts.

That's a lie.

You lied again, saying that Gil can't explain why what you said is a
lie.

Truth comes hard to you, doesn't it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 04:37:01 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:08:49?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:32:53?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie. You simply declare it and expect it to be accepted.
>>> Since you have appointed yourself trial judge as well as defense counsel, you always get a
>>> favorable ruling.
>>>> Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?
>>> https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm#:~:text=Oswald%20was%20last%20seen%20cutting%20through%20a%20parking,was%20wearing%20at%20the%20time%20of%20his%20arrest.
>> Yeah, you lied. You said:
>
>What did I say that was a lie? When I accuse you of lying, I spell it out.

I see this in Youtube videos all the time... police arresting someone,
who then whines "what did I do wrong?" - the police tell him/her, then
they repeat... "Yeah, but what did I do wrong?"

>>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>> There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
>>>> that spells out every person who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT. Whom they gave it to.
>>>> Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
>> I asked you who found Oswald's jacket.
>> You posted a link to Dale Myer's website that only says the jacket was found by police.
>> Which officer found it and show us the "documentation" you say exists proving, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
>

>Had the case gone to trial...

Tut tut tut, liar. WHO FOUND THE JACKET?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 06:00:32 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Believers are just TERRIFIED of acknowledging the truth

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 06:00:32 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:37:04?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>< more bullshit that doesn't answer the question >
>
>So I see you're not going to answer the question.
>
>1. You said, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
>Your words, not mine.
>That's lie # 1.
>
>2. You said, "THERE IS DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT."
>Your words, not mine.
>That's lie # 2.
>
>I've asked you to provide the name of the officer who found Oswald's jacket and the documentation of it
>and you've failed to do so.
>
>
>3. You claim that, "There is documentation that spells out EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE."
>Again, your words, not mine.
>That's lie # 3.

4. You claim that, "Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie."

Again, your words, not mine.

That's lie # 4.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:00:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:37:04 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> < more bullshit that doesn't answer the question >
>
> So I see you're not going to answer the question.
>
> 1. You said, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
> Your words, not mine.
> That's lie # 1.

There's no chain-of-custody issue because that is something that needs to be established
AT TRIAL. There was no trial and therefore, no need to document the chain-of-custody. I'm sure
if the case had gone to trial, the DPD and and Wade would have had no trouble producing the
required documentation.

>
> 2. You said, "THERE IS DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT."
> Your words, not mine.
> That's lie # 2.

You assume because the chain-of-custody documentation was not made public, it didn't exist.
What reason would there be for making this information public once Oswald was dead.

> I've asked you to provide the name of the officer who found Oswald's jacket and the documentation of it
> and you've failed to do so.
>

I don't know the name of the officer who found the jacket but Captain Westbrook was the one
that picked it up, not that this is important. Had his case gone to trial, the chain-of-custody would have been documented and the name of every cop who handled the jacket during the
course of the investigation would have been document. Since the case never went to trial, the DPD had no need to document that information or make it public. There is no reason for them
to anticipate your demand for that information for your make believe trial.

>
> 3. You claim that, "There is documentation that spells out EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE."
> Again, your words, not mine.
> That's lie # 3.
>
> The two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene bore the initials “RD”.
> This is revealed in the CSSS form the Dallas Police used when they released the four spent shells to FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11-28-63.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
>
> The initials “RD” do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
> In addition, no police officer with the intitals “RD” testified before the Warren Commission.

You keep demanding that the chain-of-custody documentation be made public for a trial that
was never going to happen. The DPD would have known the rules of evidence at that time and
they would have had no trouble documenting each officer who handled the evidence.

>
> So who is “RD”? And where is the documentation identifying him in the chain of custody ?

Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that
wasn't going to take place.

>
> Will you answer this question or will you run from it like you did with the first one ?

I answered your questions. I have no obligation to provide you with an answer you like.

In a criminal trial, chain-of-custody could be established through affidavits, depositions,
testimony, or stipulations. The DPD would have known the requirements as would Wade. It's
not as if this was their first rodeo. I have no doubt that had it been necessary, they would have
been able to legally establish the chain-of-custody for every piece of forenic evidence they
handled. Since you have no legal standing in this case, they had no obligation to present such
documentation to you.

You have no interest in seeking the truth in this case. As Oswald's self-appointed defense
counsel, your sole interest is in concealing the truth of his guilt. You attempt to do so by
inventing imaginary excuses to dismiss each and every piece of evidence of his guilt. Any
person interested in knowing the truth of the JFK assassination would not engage in such a
silly exercise. Such a person would look at every piece of information available without regard
for whether it would be admissible at trial. Oswald had no trial and once he was dead, he was
not entitled to one. The American people were entitled to know the truth of how their President
was killed. The WC gave that to them. The fact that a segment of the population has rejected
the truth does not entitle them to a different truth because there is only on truth. That truth is
that Oswald murdered JFK and JDT and wounded JBC. There is no credible evidence he had
had any accomplices in his crimes. You have presented no evidence that anybody except
Oswald took part in the crimes. All you have done is present one excuse after another to reject
solid evidence of his guilt. It is a silly hobby engaged in by silly men such as yourself. Nothing
you are doing is going to amount to a hill of beans. You aren't going to get the history books
rewritten. Those identify Oswald as the assassin and that is not going to change.

Just for grins, I pulled up Wikipedia's summary of the assassination. You can bet most
reputable history books describe the crime in the same manner.

[quote on]
On November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, was assassinated while riding in a presidential motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was in the vehicle with his wife, Jacqueline, Texas Governor John Connally, and Connally's wife, Nellie, when he was fatally shot from the nearby Texas School Book Depository by former U.S. Marine Lee Harvey Oswald. The motorcade rushed to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where Kennedy was pronounced dead about 30 minutes after the shooting; Connally was also wounded in the attack but recovered. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson assumed the presidency upon Kennedy's death.

After the assassination, Oswald returned home to retrieve a pistol; he shot lone Dallas policeman J. D. Tippit shortly afterwards. Around 70 minutes after Kennedy and Connally were shot, Oswald was apprehended by the Dallas Police Department and charged under Texas state law with the murders of Kennedy and Tippit. At 11:21 a.m. on November 24, 1963, as live television cameras covered Oswald's being moved through the basement of Dallas Police Headquarters, he was fatally shot by Dallas nightclub operator Jack Ruby. Like Kennedy, Oswald was taken to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where he soon died. Ruby was convicted of Oswald's murder, though the decision was overturned on appeal, and Ruby died in prison in 1967 while awaiting a new trial.
[quote off]

It might as well be carved in stone.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:00:42?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:37:04?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> < more bullshit that doesn't answer the question >
>>
>> So I see you're not going to answer the question.
>>
>> 1. You said, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
>> Your words, not mine.
>> That's lie # 1.
>
>There's no chain-of-custody issue because that is something that needs to be established
>AT TRIAL.

Nah...

If this were true, you'd not have bothered to lie and say that there
aren't any chain of custody issues in the evidence.

After being proven a liar, you're simply moving on to the next
argument.

> I'm sure if the case had gone to trial, the DPD and and Wade would have had no trouble producing the
>required documentation.

Speculation isn't evidence.

There isn't ANYONE who knows who found the jacket...

That's fact... not speculation.

>> 2. You said, "THERE IS DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT."
>> Your words, not mine.
>> That's lie # 2.
>
>You assume because the chain-of-custody documentation was not made public, it didn't exist.

No, that's a lie. We "assume" it doesn't exist BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
EXIST.

>What reason would there be for making this information public once Oswald was dead.

What reason would there be for the formation of the WC once Oswald was
dead?

>> I've asked you to provide the name of the officer who found Oswald's jacket and the documentation of it
>> and you've failed to do so.
>>

>I don't know the name of the officer...


Yet you claimed that there was documentation that spelled out every
person... lied, didn't you?

>who found the jacket but Captain Westbrook was the one
>that picked it up, not that this is important.

Moron, aren't you? Why is chain of custody even a legal standard at
all?

> Had his case gone to trial, the chain-of-custody would have been

> documented ...


But you said it WAS documented!!!

So you lied, didn't you?

Just admit your lie and retract it.

>> 3. You claim that, "There is documentation that spells out EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE."
>> Again, your words, not mine.
>> That's lie # 3.

Notice that Corbutt can't produce this documentation he claims
exists...

He simply lied.

>> The two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene bore the initials “RD”.
>> This is revealed in the CSSS form the Dallas Police used when they released the four spent shells to FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11-28-63.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
>>
>> The initials “RD” do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
>> In addition, no police officer with the intitals “RD” testified before the Warren Commission.
>
>You keep demanding that the chain-of-custody documentation be made public for a trial that
>was never going to happen. The DPD would have known the rules of evidence at that time and
>they would have had no trouble documenting each officer who handled the evidence.

Your speculation isn't evidence.

Nor is it a foundation upon which you can tell lies...

>> So who is “RD”? And where is the documentation identifying him in the chain of custody ?
>
>Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that
>wasn't going to take place.

You just HATE the evidence, don't you?

>> Will you answer this question or will you run from it like you did with the first one ?
>
>I answered your questions.

No, you EVADED Gil's questions... Like believers do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!


> I have no obligation to provide you with an answer...


Yes, you do.


>In a criminal trial...


No criminal trial took place. Stop trying to address what never
happened.

>You have no interest in seeking the truth in this case.

Says the proven liar who keeps lying about the facts in this case.

I deleted the rest of your nonsense...

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:52:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that wasn't going to take place.

Don't you just love it when they start to squirm ?
The topic has nothing to do with a trial.

It has to do with what the asshole said.
He stated AS FACT that there was no conflict in the chain of custody in ANY of the evidence.
That all of the handling of the evidence, including who found it, was documented.
When he was asked produce the name of the officer who found the jacket, he could not.
When he was challenged to produce that documentation, he could not.

First, he implies that the Dallas Police have the documentation somewhere, someplace and could have produced it at trial.
Then, he claims that it doesn't have to be documented because there was no trial.
Another lie.

Because when they found the evidence, they had no reason to believe it wasn't going to trial.
Normal police procedure, including identifying the officer who found the jacket and those who initialled the shells, should have been documented.
It should all be part of the public record.
The fact that these things are NOT, shows that there WAS a problem with the chain of custody.

That's what the evidence shows, whether he likes it or not.
And if there's a problem with the chain of custody, the evidence is legally inadmissable and as such,
should not be given any considerationin this case.

He does this all the time.
He makes statements that are not true, which makes him a liar.
And even when he's corrected by evidence, he can't admit he was wrong, which makes him a stubborn jackass.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:08:49 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:32:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie. You simply declare it and expect it to be accepted.
> > Since you have appointed yourself trial judge as well as defense counsel, you always get a
> > favorable ruling.
> > > Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?
> > https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm#:~:text=Oswald%20was%20last%20seen%20cutting%20through%20a%20parking,was%20wearing%20at%20the%20time%20of%20his%20arrest.
> Yeah, you lied. You said:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
> > > that spells out every person who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT. Whom they gave it to.
> > > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
> I asked you who found Oswald's jacket.

You refuse to show how that matters.

> You posted a link to Dale Myer's website that only says the jacket was found by police.
> Which officer found it and show us the "documentation" you say exists proving, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."

Why is it that other people have to support things they say about an issue you brought up, and never supported?

You know this is shifting the burden, right?

At any rate, I posted a link where the police of processed the jacket initialed it.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gray_Zipper_Jacket_Belonging_to_Lee_Harvey_Oswald_-_NARA_-_305140_%28page_4%29.gif

You can see "WEB" and the date "11-22-63" upside down. W.E.Barnes was the crime scene specialist on the scene of the Tippit murder.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:00:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:37:04 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> < more bullshit that doesn't answer the question >
>
> So I see you're not going to answer the question.
>
> 1. You said, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
> Your words, not mine.
> That's lie # 1.

You refuse to show this is a lie.

> 2. You said, "THERE IS DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT."
> Your words, not mine.
> That's lie # 2.

You refuse to show this is a lie.

> I've asked you to provide the name of the officer who found Oswald's jacket and the documentation of it
> and you've failed to do so.

You refuse to show this is necessary.

> 3. You claim that, "There is documentation that spells out EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE."
> Again, your words, not mine.
> That's lie # 3.

You refuse to show this is a lie.

> The two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene bore the initials “RD”.
> This is revealed in the CSSS form the Dallas Police used when they released the four spent shells to FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11-28-63.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
>
> The initials “RD” do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
> In addition, no police officer with the intitals “RD” testified before the Warren Commission.

Maybe Drain misread it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 11:52:09 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well stated.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:14:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:18:36 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >
> > The initials “RD” do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
> > In addition, no police officer with the intitals “RD” testified before the Warren Commission.
> Maybe Drain misread it.

Oh good. Another idiot wih an opinion.

It has nothing to do with Drain.

Maybe you should look at the link for once.
If you looked at the links, you wouldn't be making so many stupid remarks.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png

[Bud]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:52:11 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:52:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> > <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that wasn't going to take place.
> Don't you just love it when they start to squirm ?
> The topic has nothing to do with a trial.

That are where chain of custody issues are resolved, you stump.

> It has to do with what the asshole said.
> He stated AS FACT that there was no conflict in the chain of custody in ANY of the evidence.

You refuse to show that their are.

> That all of the handling of the evidence, including who found it, was documented.

You refuse to show this is necessary, you stump.

Let us count all the ways you are a stump who can`t think. The cops were tracking a cop killer. Why would they need to stop this important activity to process evidence? If an assailant is shooting at them do they need to grab the brass and initial it for evidence? If ten cops go past the jacket and the tenth one says "hey, that might be related to the suspect", can it not be used as evidence because ten cops went past it and ignored it?

But this is reasoning, nothing a stump like yourself should be concerned with. But I think the crime scene professionals on the scene probably know a little more about the rules of evidence than stumps like yourself on the internet.

> When he was asked produce the name of the officer who found the jacket, he could not.

You refuse to show this is necessary.

> When he was challenged to produce that documentation, he could not.
>
> First, he implies that the Dallas Police have the documentation somewhere, someplace and could have produced it at trial.

Check the testimony of W.E Barnes and Westbrooke.

> Then, he claims that it doesn't have to be documented because there was no trial.
> Another lie.

Where is it used outside of trials?

> Because when they found the evidence, they had no reason to believe it wasn't going to trial.

That is why there is no reason to believe it was processed in some flawed manner.

> Normal police procedure, including identifying the officer who found the jacket and those who initialled the shells, should have been documented.
> It should all be part of the public record.
> The fact that these things are NOT, shows that there WAS a problem with the chain of custody.

The fact that the DPD operated like they did shows there was no problem. They would know.

> That's what the evidence shows, whether he likes it or not.
> And if there's a problem with the chain of custody, the evidence is legally inadmissable and as such,
> should not be given any considerationin this case.

You refuse to show any problems that would have kept this evidence out of a courtroom.

> He does this all the time.
> He makes statements that are not true, which makes him a liar.

Meaningless noise.

> And even when he's corrected by evidence, he can't admit he was wrong, which makes him a stubborn jackass.

You spout meaningless Dunning–Kruger hot air.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:33:12 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:18:36 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > >
> > > The initials “RD” do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
> > > In addition, no police officer with the intitals “RD” testified before the Warren Commission.
> > Maybe Drain misread it.
> Oh good. Another idiot wih an opinion.

Not an opinion, it is a fact that he may have misread it. Or that it is a typo.

You want to rule out Drain being mistaken, show the initials "RD" on the shells.

> It has nothing to do with Drain.

There goes your link.

> Maybe you should look at the link for once.
> If you looked at the links, you wouldn't be making so many stupid remarks.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png

Is that the shell showing the initials "RD", stump?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:36:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:41:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:33:10 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the
evidence, and keep getting spanked.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:52:11 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:52:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> > <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that wasn't going to take place.
> Don't you just love it when they start to squirm ?
> The topic has nothing to do with a trial.

Is that so, Gil? Then why did YOU us the word INADMISSIBLE in the title of this thread? Where
would inadmissible be relevant if not at trial?

>
> It has to do with what the asshole said.
> He stated AS FACT that there was no conflict in the chain of custody in ANY of the evidence.
> That all of the handling of the evidence, including who found it, was documented.

It would have been documented had the case gone to trial.

> When he was asked produce the name of the officer who found the jacket, he could not.
> When he was challenged to produce that documentation, he could not.

What reason would there be for the DPD to release the chain-of-custody documentation for a
trial that was never going to take place. Do you think they would have given a shit if some
future assclown (like you) tried to make an issue of it 6 decades later?

>
> First, he implies that the Dallas Police have the documentation somewhere, someplace and could have produced it at trial.

Since the DPD and the DA's office knew the rules of evidence, it is a safe assumption they knew
what they needed to do to get the evidence admitted in court. They would have kept a record of
the chain-of-custody. When Oswald died, they had no reason to make it that documentation
public. You certainly haven't given them one with your demand for this documentation to make
the evidence admissible at your make believe trial.

> Then, he claims that it doesn't have to be documented because there was no trial.
> Another lie.

What other reason would require such documentation.

>
> Because when they found the evidence, they had no reason to believe it wasn't going to trial.

They had gathered the evidence and knew who had handled it. When Oswald was killed two days
later, they knew the case wasn't going to trial. At that point, the records would have gone into
a file cabinet.

> Normal police procedure, including identifying the officer who found the jacket and those who initialled the shells, should have been documented.

Do you have reason to believe that it was not, other than they didn't provide it to Oswald's self
appointed defense counsel?

> It should all be part of the public record.
> The fact that these things are NOT, shows that there WAS a problem with the chain of custody.
>

If you think there was a problem, why don't you file a FOIA request to have that documentation
made public.

> That's what the evidence shows, whether he likes it or not.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

> And if there's a problem with the chain of custody, the evidence is legally inadmissable and as such,
> should not be given any considerationin this case.

Oswald isn't going on trial so the claim of inadmissibility is moot. Anyone interested in knowing
the truth of the assassination isn't going to disregard evidence because you believe it would
have been inadmissible in court. Those rules do not apply when looking at the case from a
historical perspective. The only questions that should be asked is if the evidence the evidence
is probative and if so, what does it indicate. The bullets, the shells, Oswald's jacket, fiber
evidence, fingerprints, rifle, photos with the rifle, documentation of his purchase of the rifle and
revolver, etc. are all probative and they present definitive proof of his guilt.

>
> He does this all the time.
> He makes statements that are not true, which makes him a liar.

You make statements which are not true all the time, which makes you a dumbass.

> And even when he's corrected by evidence, he can't admit he was wrong, which makes him a stubborn jackass.

You never present evidence. You present your asinine excuses for disregarding the evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:36:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:52:11?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:52:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that wasn't going to take place.
>> Don't you just love it when they start to squirm ?
>> The topic has nothing to do with a trial.
>
>Is that so, Gil?

Yep.

>> It has to do with what the asshole said.
>> He stated AS FACT that there was no conflict in the chain of custody in ANY of the evidence.
>> That all of the handling of the evidence, including who found it, was documented.
>
>It would have been documented had the case gone to trial.

Oswald would have been proven innocent had the case gone to trial.


You lose.

>> When he was asked produce the name of the officer who found the jacket, he could not.
>> When he was challenged to produce that documentation, he could not.
>

>What reason would there be....


For you to support your claim? Other than prove your truthfulness,
nothing...


But you couldn't... so we KNOW that you're a liar.

>> First, he implies that the Dallas Police have the documentation somewhere, someplace and could have produced it at trial.
>

>Since the DPD and the DA's office knew the rules of evidence, it is a safe assumption ...


I know the rules of evidence, therefore Oswald is innocent.

You lose again...

>> Then, he claims that it doesn't have to be documented because there was no trial.
>> Another lie.
>
>What other reason would require such documentation.

You don't get it, do you? You've been caught BLATANTLY lying.

>> Because when they found the evidence, they had no reason to believe it wasn't going to trial.
>
>They had gathered the evidence and knew who had handled it.

On WHAT do you base this lie on? Can you cite ANYTHING AT ALL that
would lead an honest man to believe this?

>> Normal police procedure, including identifying the officer who found the jacket and those who initialled the shells, should have been documented.
>

>Do you have reason to believe that it was not...


Of course... it wasn't.

The truth is ALWAYS a good reason to "believer"...

>> It should all be part of the public record.
>> The fact that these things are NOT, shows that there WAS a problem with the chain of custody.
>>
>If you think there was a problem, why don't you file a FOIA request to have that documentation
>made public.

Why are you stupid enough to ask critics to support YOUR case?

>> That's what the evidence shows, whether he likes it or not.
>
>Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Of *COURSE* it is! It's evidence that you're a liar.

You're making claims you have no evidence for.

>> And if there's a problem with the chain of custody, the evidence is legally inadmissable and as such,
>> should not be given any considerationin this case.
>

>Oswald...


Is innocent. The evidence would have been presented in court, and
would have proven him a patsy.


I'll produce the citations that prove that statement just as soon as
you cite the evidence proving your lies.

>> He does this all the time.
>> He makes statements that are not true, which makes him a liar.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> And even when he's corrected by evidence, he can't admit he was wrong, which makes him a stubborn jackass.
>
>You never present evidence.

A more blatant lie couldn't be given.

[Bud]

Your empty claims about the evidence are irrelevant.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 14:21:45 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[David Healy]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
> >
> > Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
> >

> > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation

> > that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.

> > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.

> Notice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on unnamed sources and never hesitate in doing so. JFK supposedly said he was going to breakup the CIA. And that was their motive. When did he say this? To who? What did he do to carry the threat out? Who in the CIA knew this? They can't answer any of this or even care.
> And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.

how much does Bud pay you to be so damn stu-pee-dooooo? LMFAO

[David Healy]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 9:22:40 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:54:51 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.

> Stop it Professor Numbnut.
> You're hurting my feelings.
> I wonder why there's no Professor Steven Galbraith listed on line in any college History Department ANYWHERE.
> You must be one of those "absent-minded professors" teaching a course on the JFK assassination at the School of Hard Knocks.

I suspect another dumb student teacher trainee at Marquette U...

[...]

[David Healy]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 9:50:23 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:32:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > The FBI report DOES INDEED say that JFK and Connally were hit by
> > separate shots, as Von Penis admitted.
> >
> > Gil has been stating the truth all along, and out of all the
> > believers, only Von Penis agreed (but couldn't bear to tell Corbutt he
> > got caught lying.)
> Right now they're in damage control mode.
> Expect them to start with the personal attacks or trying to change the subject.

they're getting too old to mount any kind of defense for the 1964 WCR (even if they wanted to).... Hell, $60.00/mo and a carton of Pall Mall''s is great incentive for .johnites....

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:57:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the evidence, and keep getting spanked.

They are a comical bunch. Very entertaining. I don't know how many times they've had me laughing my ass off at their foolishness.

First they argue that there was no problem with the chain of custody, then when it's proven to them that there was a problem, they argue that the chain of custody doesn't matter because there wasn't going to be a trial. But they're too stupid to realize that the chain of custody DOES matter when you're autheticating evidence, whether or not you end up going to trial. Some cases don't go to trial. Some cases get plea bargained. But either way, you still have to maintain a chain of custody of the evidence and that chain begins at the POINT OF DISCOVERY, not in some detective's coat pocket or an FBI lab.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of

Unless the person who discovered the item can identify the item in evidence as the item they found, there is no authentication of the "evidence" and no chain of custody established.
Without the authetication and established chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissable and should not be considered in any legal arena that introduces evidence.
Including government hearings like the Warren Commission.

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 6:29:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:57:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the evidence, and keep getting spanked.
> They are a comical bunch. Very entertaining. I don't know how many times they've had me laughing my ass off at their foolishness.
>
> First they argue that there was no problem with the chain of custody, then when it's proven to them that there was a problem,

You've proved nothing, Gil. To prove there was a problem with the chain-of-custody, you would have to prove the prosecutors could not have established chain-of-custody a trial. All you have done is show they didn't do something they no longer needed to do once Oswald was killed. As is typical with conspiracy hobbyists, you assume what you cannot prove.

> they argue that the chain of custody doesn't matter because there wasn't going to be a trial.

That is absolutely true. Chain-of-custody is something that is only required to be established at

trial.

> But they're too stupid to realize that the chain of custody DOES matter when you're autheticating evidence,

Only at trial. Was chain of custody ever legally established for the Derringer Booth used to assassinate Lincoln?

> whether or not you end up going to trial. Some cases don't go to trial. Some cases get plea bargained. But either way, you still have to maintain a chain of custody of the evidence and that chain begins at the POINT OF DISCOVERY, not in some detective's coat pocket or an FBI lab.

Are you seriously going to tell us that if an accused person pleads guilty to a crime, the prosecutors
still have to establish chain of custody?

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
>
> Unless the person who discovered the item can identify the item in evidence as the item they found, there is no authentication of the "evidence" and no chain of custody established.

Where in the article you cited does it say that?

> Without the authetication and established chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissable

OK, your honor, you've established you will not admit the evidence against Oswald to be used
in the imaginary trial you are conducting. Why should that matter to people who want to
determine the truth of the JFK assassination.

> and should not be considered in any legal arena that introduces evidence.

This is not a legal arena.

> Including government hearings like the Warren Commission.

The Warren Commission was a fact finding body. It's sole purpose was to determine the facts
of the assassination of JFK. They had no obligation to follow the same rules of evidence that a
criminal trial does because that procedure has the duel purpose of finding the truth while still
protecting the rights of the accused. The Warren Court established much more stringent rules
of evidence in the years following the assassination but not because of the assassination. Those
seeking the truth of the assassination are not bound by those stringent rules of evidence because
they have no obligation to protect Oswald's rights. No one is in position to deprive Oswald of
life, liberty, or property. That included the Warren Commission.

[Chuck Schuyler]

We're not in court, Johnny Cochrane.

Oswald is historically guilty. JFK's own Presidential library links to the WCR for individuals who want to learn more about that fateful day. It takes pains to remind visitors that the acoustical evidence for a so called fourth shot the HSCA included in its report has been debunked.

You SPECULATE that nearly ALL of the evidence against Oswald would be tossed by a judge. You sit at home and fantasize about being Oswald's attorney. You don't even know if Oswald would've confessed or not to the crimes. No one really knows, as Ruby removed that possibility. Of course in your world, Ruby was working to kill Oswald on behalf of the conspiracy you refuse to identify.

As Trump would say, "Sad!"

[John Corbett]

Obviously, the JFK Presidential Library is in on the cover up. How could they not agree with
Johnny Cochrane wannabe Gil Jesus that Oswald was framed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 07:55:42 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Obviously, the JFK Presidential Library...

Obviously, you're about to tell another whopper... so I deleted it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 04:15:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 6:29:01?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:57:42?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the evidence, and keep getting spanked.
>> They are a comical bunch. Very entertaining. I don't know how many times they've had me laughing my ass off at their foolishness.
>>
>> First they argue that there was no problem with the chain of custody, then when it's proven to them that there was a problem,
>
>You've proved nothing, Gil.

Nah... he proved quite conclusively that you're a liar... cited for
every example given.

> To prove there was a problem with the chain-of-custody

Already done. Does the sun shine where you live?

>> they argue that the chain of custody doesn't matter because there wasn't going to be a trial.
>
>That is absolutely true. Chain-of-custody is something that is only required to be established at
>trial.

Didn't bother reading the rest of the point before showing your
stupidity...

>> But they're too stupid to realize that the chain of custody DOES matter when you're autheticating evidence,
>
>Only at trial.

On what do you base your belief about what happened on 11/22/63?

You won't answer... you CAN'T answer...

>> whether or not you end up going to trial. Some cases don't go to
>> trial. Some cases get plea bargained. But either way, you still have
>> to maintain a chain of custody of the evidence and that chain begins
>> at the POINT OF DISCOVERY, not in some detective's coat pocket or an
>> FBI lab.
>

>Are you seriously going to tell us ...

That First they argue that there was no problem with the chain of
custody, then when it's proven to them that there was a problem, they

argue that the chain of custody doesn't matter because there wasn't

going to be a trial. But they're too stupid to realize that the chain
of custody DOES matter when you're autheticating evidence, whether or

not you end up going to trial. Some cases don't go to trial. Some
cases get plea bargained. But either way, you still have to maintain a
chain of custody of the evidence and that chain begins at the POINT OF
DISCOVERY, not in some detective's coat pocket or an FBI lab.

Do you need to hear it again?

>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
>>
>> Unless the person who discovered the item can identify the item in evidence as the item they found, there is no authentication of the "evidence" and no chain of custody established.
>
>Where in the article you cited does it say that?

Did you bother ro read the citation? It's the 5th sentence. Use your
fingers if you can't count that high.

>> Without the authetication and established chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissable
>
>OK, your honor, you've established you will not admit the evidence against Oswald to be used
>in the imaginary trial you are conducting. Why should that matter to people who want to
>determine the truth of the JFK assassination.

As you can't tell us what you base your belief about what happened on
11/22/63 - there's nothing left to say.

>> and should not be considered in any legal arena that introduces evidence.
>
>This is not a legal arena.

The WC was... are you REALLY this stupid, or are you just pretending
stupidity?

>> Including government hearings like the Warren Commission.
>
>The Warren Commission was a fact finding body.

They failed. They PROVABLY hid legitimate evidence.

> It's sole purpose was to determine the facts
>of the assassination of JFK.

Then explain why they went "off the record" ... You can't, of course.

You lose.

>They had no obligation to follow the same rules of evidence that a
>criminal trial does because that procedure has the duel purpose of finding the truth while still
>protecting the rights of the accused.

You are creating some artificial devide that doesn't exist.

The rules of evidence ensure that you're actually looking at facts.

> The Warren Court established much more stringent rules
>of evidence in the years following the assassination but not because of the assassination.

Then it has no bearing here.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 07:37:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 5:29:01?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:57:42?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the evidence, and keep getting spanked.
>> They are a comical bunch. Very entertaining. I don't know how many times they've had me laughing my ass off at their foolishness.
>>
>> First they argue that there was no problem with the chain of custody, then when it's proven to them that there was a problem, they argue that the chain of custody doesn't matter because there wasn't going to be a trial. But they're too stupid to realize that the chain of custody DOES matter when you're autheticating evidence, whether or not you end up going to trial. Some cases don't go to trial. Some cases get plea bargained. But either way, you still have to maintain a chain of custody of the evidence and that chain begins at the POINT OF DISCOVERY, not in some detective's coat pocket or an FBI lab.
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
>>
>> Unless the person who discovered the item can identify the item in evidence as the item they found, there is no authentication of the "evidence" and no chain of custody established.
>> Without the authetication and established chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissable and should not be considered in any legal arena that introduces evidence.
>> Including government hearings like the Warren Commission.
>
>

>We're not in court...


How long did it take for you to figure that out?


>Oswald is historically guilty.


And you're "historically" a child molester.

[Bud]

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 6:29:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:57:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the evidence, and keep getting spanked.
> They are a comical bunch. Very entertaining. I don't know how many times they've had me laughing my ass off at their foolishness.
>
> First they argue that there was no problem with the chain of custody, then when it's proven to them that there was a problem,

You think that just because an idiot claims something that proves it?

> they argue that the chain of custody doesn't matter because there wasn't going to be a trial.

That wasn`t Corbett`s argument, but you are too stupid to understand that.

>But they're too stupid to realize that the chain of custody DOES matter when you're autheticating evidence, whether or not you end up going to trial. Some cases don't go to trial. Some cases get plea bargained. But either way, you still have to maintain a chain of custody of the evidence and that chain begins at the POINT OF DISCOVERY,

So W.E. Barnes was at the point of discovery for the jacket found in Oak Cliff.

>not in some detective's coat pocket or an FBI lab.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
>
> Unless the person who discovered the item

Your link doesn`t say that, stupid.

>can identify the item in evidence as the item they found, there is no authentication of the "evidence" and no chain of custody established.
> Without the authetication and established chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissable and should not be considered in any legal arena that introduces evidence.

I think DPD knew better about how it worked than stumps on the internet.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:42:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>