A hypothetical question I posed to Gil on chain-of-custody

[John Corbett]

In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:

"Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are able
to ballistically match the gun to a recent murder. The weapon is traced to its owner who was the
prime suspect in the murder. Police have other evidence linking him to the crime but the gun is
essential to the prosecution's case. Do you honestly think the court is going to let a murderer
walk because the person who found the gun can't be positive it is the same gun he found and
turned over to the police."

The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case. The Manson Family murders at the home of Sharon Tate. Maybe you've heard
of it. The murderers tossed a gun from the car as they fled the scene of the
crime along with some bloody clothing. It was found by 10 year old Steve
Weiss who turned it over to his father. His father turned it over to the Van
Nuys police who had no idea it had been used in the murders. It was stored
away in an evidence room for months before somebody figured out it had
been used in the murders. The gun was a crucial piece of evidence. It
belonged to Charles Manson. Since he hadn't directly participated in the
murders, the gun was needed to show he had been the mastermind behind
the crimes. It's rather silly to think there was a tight chain-of-custody
maintained for that gun but Vincent Bugliosi got it introduced as evidence
and was able to convict Manson and his followers for the crimes.

I didn't mention any of this when I posed the question to Gil. So what was
Gil's response to the question? He deleted it and responded "ROFLMAO".
Now who can argue with that?

[NoTrueFlags Here]

I'm supposed to read all that shit? Why can't these Loon Nutters keep it concise?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
>question to Gil:

Every question you ask is answered.

Sadly, the same can't be said for *YOU* answering every question asked
of you.

Why is that, coward?

>"Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are able
>to ballistically match the gun to a recent murder. The weapon is traced to its owner who was the
>prime suspect in the murder. Police have other evidence linking him to the crime but the gun is
>essential to the prosecution's case. Do you honestly think the court is going to let a murderer
>walk because the person who found the gun can't be positive it is the same gun he found and
>turned over to the police."

No one has said this.

That you have to lie to try to make your case shows that YOU know
you've lost.

>The question wasn't one I just dreamed up.

And claimed was "hypothetical"... you prove yourself a liar!!!
ROTLMAO!

>It is based on a real life case. The Manson Family murders at the
>home of Sharon Tate. Maybe you've heard
>of it. The murderers tossed a gun from the car as they fled the scene of the
>crime along with some bloody clothing. It was found by 10 year old Steve
>Weiss who turned it over to his father. His father turned it over to the Van
>Nuys police who had no idea it had been used in the murders. It was stored
>away in an evidence room for months before somebody figured out it had
>been used in the murders. The gun was a crucial piece of evidence. It
>belonged to Charles Manson. Since he hadn't directly participated in the
>murders, the gun was needed to show he had been the mastermind behind
>the crimes. It's rather silly to think there was a tight chain-of-custody

>maintained for that gun....


There you go again...

Using YOUR speculation and ideas as "evidence" to support your wacky
ideas.

It's rather silly of you ... so all we can do is laugh!

Why don't you explain to us why a 10 year old was called to testify in
a murder case in court... did he witness the murders? Was he pals
with Manson? WHY WAS HE CALLED TO TESTIFY?

And on what?


Tell us about your apparent belief that Scott Weiss was called to
testify, EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T BELIEVE HE COULD IDENTIFY THAT GUN!

You apparently think he was called by the defense to show that the
pistol shouldn't be admitted into evidence.

But you can't cite for that wacky thought of yours.


YOU CAN'T CITE THE SUPPORTNG EVIDENCE FOR YOUR WACKY SPECULATIONS!


You lose!


ROTFLMAO!!!

> but Vincent Bugliosi got it introduced as evidence
>and was able to convict Manson and his followers for the crimes.

You mean that Bugliosi was able to do something DESPITE your
speculations!!!

Where's the cite to Steve Weiss's testimony denying that *that* was
the pistol he found?


OR COULD IT BE THAT YOU'RE SIMPLY LYING AGAIN?


Of course, you don't believe Bugliosi...

>I didn't mention any of this when I posed the question to Gil. So what was
>Gil's response to the question? He deleted it and responded "ROFLMAO".
>Now who can argue with that?

Arguing with your PROVEN speculation is a meaningless exercise of free
time that can be better spent...

Why can't you CITE court records stating that there was no chain of
custody?

WHY CAN'T YOU???

[Hank Sienzant]

He wasn’t called to identify the gun. He didn’t mark it in any fashion, nor could he say that was weapon he found to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

He was called to establish the way the gun came to be in the Van Nuys police department’s custody for months before being connected to the Manson family murders.

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/05/archives/manson-jury-told-of-gun-by-boy-11-witness-says-he-reminded-police.html

>
> You apparently think he was called by the defense to show that the
> pistol shouldn't be admitted into evidence.

No, strawman argument.

>
> But you can't cite for that wacky thought of yours.

You brought it up. It’s your strawman argument.

>
>
> YOU CAN'T CITE THE SUPPORTNG EVIDENCE FOR YOUR WACKY SPECULATIONS!

You’re doing it against, you make a false claim that someone said something they didn’t, then shift the burden and ask them to defend the false attribution you made.

>
>
> You lose!
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
> > but Vincent Bugliosi got it introduced as evidence
> >and was able to convict Manson and his followers for the crimes.
> You mean that Bugliosi was able to do something DESPITE your
> speculations!!!

No, Bugliosi got the gun introduced into evidence despite Steve Weiss not marking the gun into evidence even though he was the first person to discover it.

>
> Where's the cite to Steve Weiss's testimony denying that *that* was
> the pistol he found?

Shifting the burden of proof. You’re asking him to support your strawman argument.
Where’s your cite for him *positively identifying the gun as the one he found*?
Gil is insisting that’s necessary to get evidence admitted. Gil never supported that claim, and you are not supporting that Weiss was called to identify the weapon.

>
>
> OR COULD IT BE THAT YOU'RE SIMPLY LYING AGAIN?
>
>
> Of course, you don't believe Bugliosi...
> >I didn't mention any of this when I posed the question to Gil. So what was
> >Gil's response to the question? He deleted it and responded "ROFLMAO".
> >Now who can argue with that?
> Arguing with your PROVEN speculation is a meaningless exercise of free
> time that can be better spent...
>
> Why can't you CITE court records stating that there was no chain of
> custody?
>
> WHY CAN'T YOU???

Steve Weiss didn’t mark the weapon. So that destroys Gil’s argument that “Once evidence is discovered, it's in someone's control. You can't establish a chain of custody if the person who discovered the evidence can't identify it. Without their identification, the evidence is not authenticated. Without authentication, there is no proof that the evidence wasn't tampered with or substituted. And THAT'S the purpose of a chain of custody: TO PROVE THAT THE ITEMS IN EVIDENCE ARE THE SAME ITEMS DISCOVERED.”

So, was Steve Weiss show the weapon and did he positively identify it as the one he found based on the marking(s) he put on the weapon?

Gil? Ben? Sky?

[Hank Sienzant]

That quote comes from this post:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/GjBt9B8o690/m/KLKrMOuvAgAJ

[NoTrueFlags Here]

On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:45:55 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Steve Weiss and Ed Coyle ran down to the TSBD and gave James Powell a camera. According to my information, he did not find a gun.

[John Corbett]

On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> That quote comes from this post:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/GjBt9B8o690/m/KLKrMOuvAgAJ
> >
> > So, was Steve Weiss show the weapon and did he positively identify it as the one he found based on the marking(s) he put on the weapon?
> >

One of the things Gil wrote in the thread you have referenced is this:

"I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers."

At trial, Steve Weiss, by then 11 years old, was shown the gun by Bugliosi and asked if it was
the gun he found. He said it was. Even though he had not marked it in any way, the court
relied on the memory of an 11 year old to positively identify the murder weapon in one of the
most infamous and ghastly crimes in California history. Yet Gil doesn't think the courts would
allow documentation based on the memory of police officers.

[John Corbett]

Yesterday I found the transcript of Steve Weiss's entire testimony but for some reason I can't
find my way to it today. I thought I had bookmarked it, but apparently not. Young Steve Weiss
seemed to show remarkable poise on the stand for an 11 year old. I'm sure he was a compelling
witness for the prosecution. His testimony was a vital link connecting Manson to the murders.
Not only did he find the gun, but he and his father were persistent in letting the prosecutors
know about the gun they had found and which was carelessly relegated to the Van Nuys property
room. When one considers how many people would have had access to that room over the
course of many months, it kind of shoots a hole in Gil' insistence that a very tight chain of
custody must be maintained for a piece of evidence to be admitted in court.

The NYT article describes how the chain of custody was established through courtroom
testimony. There would have been no trouble producing similar testimony for the various
pieces of evidence had Oswald gone to trial. The jury would have heard from the person who
found the evidence and from the people who handled it.

PS. I found it a bit unsettling to think that "young" Steve Weiss is now 64 year old.

[Hank Sienzant]

We are all older by six decades from the JFK assassination. And 54 years older from the Manson murders in 1969. And worse, nobody gets out of here alive.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:


The Nutters want to look at the wrong Steve Weiss in the worst way. That's how they look at everything.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
> question to Gil:
>
> "Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are able
> to ballistically match the gun to a recent murder. The weapon is traced to its owner who was the
> prime suspect in the murder. Police have other evidence linking him to the crime but the gun is
> essential to the prosecution's case. Do you honestly think the court is going to let a murderer
> walk because the person who found the gun can't be positive it is the same gun he found and
> turned over to the police."
>
> The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.

So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
And this time, you've even admitted it.
SMH

And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.

In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.
Not one.

That's a big difference.

11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.

How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?

To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.
I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.

But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.
You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.
When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
That's the way I work.

And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through.
You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.
"What about this case" and "what about that case".

The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,
you've failed to make your point.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> Every question you ask is answered.
>
> Sadly, the same can't be said for *YOU* answering every question asked
> of you.
>
> Why is that, coward?

It's always difficult to debate an issue when one side has the experience and knowledge of the topic
and the other side has no fucking clue.

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:34:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
> > question to Gil:
> >
> > "Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are able
> > to ballistically match the gun to a recent murder. The weapon is traced to its owner who was the
> > prime suspect in the murder. Police have other evidence linking him to the crime but the gun is
> > essential to the prosecution's case. Do you honestly think the court is going to let a murderer
> > walk because the person who found the gun can't be positive it is the same gun he found and
> > turned over to the police."
> >
> > The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.
> So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.

Support your opinion that a hypothetical can`t be based in a real life case.

> Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
> And this time, you've even admitted it.
> SMH
>
> And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don`t.

What happens is that you offer some half baked ideas and when they are examined you make yourself scarce.

> A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.

How exactly can a positive identification be made in a case like this?

The point being made is that it *was* allowed into the chain of evidence and *was* used as evidence in a trial.

Contrary to the ideas that you have expressed.

> In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.
> Not one.

You haven`t show how this is even possible.

I find a shell and give it to a cop. If I`m shown it later, how do I know whether it is the same shell I gave to the cop?

> That's a big difference.
>
> 11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
>
> How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
> Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
> Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
> How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
> to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?

Then why do you find it strange that none if none of the witnesses in the assassination did so?

> To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.
> I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.

Did you read what he wrote?

> But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.
> You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.
> When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
> That's the way I work.

You say stupid things and then run off when they are examined. That is your MO.

> And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through.
> You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.
> "What about this case" and "what about that case".

We understand why you don`t what your ideas compared to the real world. They only work in the fantasy world that exists between your ears.

> The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.

The rules of evidence have nothing in common from one case to the next?

> And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,
> you've failed to make your point.

Yet you find it significant when people who saw the stretcher bullet can`t make a positive identification as the bullet they saw/handled.

[Bud]

But we do try to help you guys out by providing you clues.

It is difficult to discuss ideas when you folks can`t think or reason.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don`t.

That's because your a stupid, lying little girl who won't stand up for yourself when a fellow employee
says the CIA killed Kennedy.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/jYTjItta_PQ/m/7Zn8BZoHBgAJ

You've admitted your cowardice.
Live with it.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Support your opinion that a hypothetical can`t be based in a real life case.

You really have a problem with word definitions, don't you ?

2 : not real : imagined as an example
"She described a hypothetical case to clarify her point."

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/hypothetical

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don`t.
> That's because your a stupid, lying little girl who won't stand up for yourself when a fellow employee
> says the CIA killed Kennedy.

What are you talking about, idiot, "stand up for myself"? He didn`t do anything against me.

Look, I`m an atheist, if I`m walking down the street downtown and one of those Bible thumping, "the end is near" lunatics are spouting nonsense on a corner, I`ll cross and avoid them, I certainly won`t engage them. Am I going to convince his that God doesn`t exist? Why would I care to?

> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/jYTjItta_PQ/m/7Zn8BZoHBgAJ
>
> You've admitted your cowardice.

You`ve broadcast your stupidity.

> Live with it.

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:34:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
> > question to Gil:
> >
> > "Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are able
> > to ballistically match the gun to a recent murder. The weapon is traced to its owner who was the
> > prime suspect in the murder. Police have other evidence linking him to the crime but the gun is
> > essential to the prosecution's case. Do you honestly think the court is going to let a murderer
> > walk because the person who found the gun can't be positive it is the same gun he found and
> > turned over to the police."
> >
> > The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.
> So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
> Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
> And this time, you've even admitted it.
> SMH
>
> And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
>

It was a hypothetical based on a real case.

> A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.

The witness identified the gun from memory, many months after finding it and turning it over to
the Van Nuys police. In another thread, you scoffed at the idea that chain of custody could be

established based on the memory of the cops. You wrote:

"I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.

NOT"

Yet here we have a court validating one of the most critical pieces of evidence based on the
memory of an 11 year old boy, many months after he found the gun. Once again you put your
double standards on full display.

> In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.

Do you think the Van Nuys police department maintained a tight chain of custody on the gun in
question? How many people do you think had access to the property room in the many months
the gun was stored there and forgotten?

> Not one.
>
> That's a big difference.
>
> 11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
>
> How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
> Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
> Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
> How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
> to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?
>
> To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.
> I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.

Yes I do. The following is a PDF of the trial transcript for testimony on September 4, 1970,
14 months after the crime.

http://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol83.pdf

Steven Weiss's testimony begins on page 17. The page numbers are on the top and most of them
are prefixed by 99 but page 17 for some reason is not. The PDF does not allow copy and paste
operation so you will have to read through it yourself.

>
> But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.

I just did. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I haven't answered you.

> You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.

If that's your excuse for dodging.

> When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
> That's the way I work.
>
> And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through.
> You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.

I brought up a hypothetical and the real life case it was based on. It was a hypothetical because
it was generic in nature and was brought up to illustrate that the chain of custody rules aren't
nearly as restrictive as what you claim.

> "What about this case" and "what about that case".
>

I brought up the particulars of this case to rebut your claim that chain of custody can't be
established by the memories of the people who handle the evidence, whether those people are
cops or a 10 year old boy.

> The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.

The rules of evidence apply to both. California and Texas might have their own specifics, but for
the most part, they have to follow the same requirements as established through many years of
jurisprudence. Supreme Court rulings on evidence apply to all states.

> And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,
> you've failed to make your point.

He asked by Bugliosi if the gun he was shown at trial was the one he found. The court allowed
the question and the boys answer. The defense did not object. One of the defense lawyers
asked him on cross examination how the Van Nuys cop handle the gun and he replied the cop
grabbed it with both hands after the boy had carefully picked up the gun by the barrel. None of
the defense attorneys asked him how he was sure it was the same gun he found. Steven Weiss's
testimony about the gun begins at the bottom of page 18. Under direct testimony, he testified that the gun he found was missing the right hand grip. The gun he was shown at trial was
missing the right hand grip. A piece of that missing grip was found at the murder scene which
is how the prosecution was able to tie the gun to the murders. One of the bullets recovered
could also be positively matched to the gun. Four others could not be positively matched.

Now if Steven Weiss had given similar testimony against Oswald instead of Manson and his
co-defendants, you would be making the argument that there could be more than one gun with
a missing right hand grip. How do we know that. Because you will always look for an out to
explain away each and every piece of evidence against your imaginary client. It's what you do.
It's how you dismiss the fiber evidence from Oswald's shirt on the butt plate of the rifle and the
blanket fibers found in the rifle bag.

[Bud]

Also means...

"involving or being based on a suggested idea or theory"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothetical#:~:text=%3A%20involving%20or%20being%20based%20on,hypothetical%20noun

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:49:52 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don`t.
> > That's because your a stupid, lying little girl who won't stand up for yourself when a fellow employee
> > says the CIA killed Kennedy.
> What are you talking about, idiot, "stand up for myself"? He didn`t do anything against me.
>
> Look, I`m an atheist, if I`m walking down the street downtown and one of those Bible thumping, "the end is near" lunatics are spouting nonsense on a corner, I`ll cross and avoid them, I certainly won`t engage them. Am I going to convince his that God doesn`t exist? Why would I care to?

I used to work in downtown Columbus, OH and it was not unusual to see one of those Bible
thumpers ranting on the sidewalk during lunch hour. Most of the time I passed them by with
an amused look without saying anything. One time one of them blurted out to no one in
particular, "The wages of sin is death", to which I replied, "Like you ain't going to fucking die.".
I couldn't resist.

We had a similar libtard nutcase who used to blurt his far left dogma on the street using a
bullhorn. His name was Bob Fitrakis and one year the Democrats picked him to be the sacrificial
lamb to run against John Kasich. He go 21% of the vote. I couldn't resist yanking his chain
whenever I got a chance.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

You're a sick bastard. And very stupid.

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:01:46 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:49:52 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don`t.
> > > That's because your a stupid, lying little girl who won't stand up for yourself when a fellow employee
> > > says the CIA killed Kennedy.
> > What are you talking about, idiot, "stand up for myself"? He didn`t do anything against me.
> >
> > Look, I`m an atheist, if I`m walking down the street downtown and one of those Bible thumping, "the end is near" lunatics are spouting nonsense on a corner, I`ll cross and avoid them, I certainly won`t engage them. Am I going to convince his that God doesn`t exist? Why would I care to?
> I used to work in downtown Columbus, OH and it was not unusual to see one of those Bible
> thumpers ranting on the sidewalk during lunch hour. Most of the time I passed them by with
> an amused look without saying anything. One time one of them blurted out to no one in
> particular, "The wages of sin is death", to which I replied, "Like you ain't going to fucking die.".
> I couldn't resist.

There is an element of danger engaging lunatics in the real world. Last week there was a nutjob having a psychotic episode, acting out kicking over mopeds, and someone waiting for a bus said something and the nutjob stabbed and killed him.

It is a wonder that some conspiracy whackjob didn`t show up and Marquette and attack McAdams, a guy like this...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/man-commits-suicide-where-kennedy-was-shot-1.514464

...could easily convince himself that by attacking McAdams they would be striking a blow against the conspiracy.

He did say that people were always contacting Marquette, trying to get him in trouble. He said over time Marquette learned to ignore these people, but just putting himself out there carried an element of danger from lunatics.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

That's a good reason for you to use the name "Bud." That way, the psychotic kooks won't know how to find you and whip your ass.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 9:37:25 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> It is a wonder that some conspiracy whackjob didn`t show up and Marquette and attack McAdams, a guy like this...
>
> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/man-commits-suicide-where-kennedy-was-shot-1.514464
>
> ...could easily convince himself that by attacking McAdams they would be striking a blow against the conspiracy.
>
> He did say that people were always contacting Marquette, trying to get him in trouble. He said over time Marquette learned to ignore these people, but just putting himself out there carried an element of danger from lunatics.

# 1 Your hatred for "conspiracy kooks" is the motivating force behind why you are here and has been well documented over the years.
Once again, you've shown how cowards like you are afraid of "engaging lunatics in the real world" but have no problem coming on line,
hiding behing a fake screenname and bullying people you don't agree with.
I can only hope that cowards like you don't get drafted into the next war or we're all fucked. You'll be sucking terrorist dick to stay alive.

# 2 We know all about your patron saint McAdams. His legacy can be seen here:
www.prouty.org/mcadams

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:31:04 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 9:37:25 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > It is a wonder that some conspiracy whackjob didn`t show up and Marquette and attack McAdams, a guy like this...
> >
> > https://www.irishtimes.com/news/man-commits-suicide-where-kennedy-was-shot-1.514464
> >
> > ...could easily convince himself that by attacking McAdams they would be striking a blow against the conspiracy.
> >
> > He did say that people were always contacting Marquette, trying to get him in trouble. He said over time Marquette learned to ignore these people, but just putting himself out there carried an element of danger from lunatics.
> # 1 Your hatred for "conspiracy kooks" is the motivating force behind why you are here

Are you ever right about anything? Ever?

> and has been well documented over the years.

Let`s see that documentation.

> Once again, you've shown how cowards like you are afraid of "engaging lunatics in the real world"

That`s just common sense. And what is the upside of me engaging idiots in the real world. Do you think I care enough about your beliefs to try to change them? Do you think I would see it as a victory if I persuaded some crackpot here that it was Oswald alone who was responsible for Kennedy`s death? If you think this, you don`t know me at all.

As far as idiots in the real world, they seem to have the numbers against me. Can`t fix them so I avoid them. I won`t even argue with leftists in the real world, they are so indoctrinated it is a waste of time.

> but have no problem coming on line,

Like I said, I`m an atheist, and I have had discussions with religious people online (BT George and McAdams to name two), but I probably wouldn`t engage someone in the real world in a theological discussion. In the comfort of my home I can marshal my thoughts and make concise arguments, not so much on a street corner.

> hiding behing a fake screenname and bullying people you don't agree with.

How can I possibly "bully" anyone online? You feel yourself put upon because you are no match for me in a battle of wits. That isn`t me bullying you, that is you being inadequate.

> I can only hope that cowards like you don't get drafted into the next war or we're all fucked.

Only a stump like yourself would figure I`m anywhere near young enough to be drafted.

> You'll be sucking terrorist dick to stay alive.

Strictly handjobs, those people never bathe.

But are you caught up in the war hysteria, Gil? They always get the stupid ones first.

> # 2 We know all about your patron saint McAdams. His legacy can be seen here:
> www.prouty.org/mcadams

You`ll never be half the man he was. Or even half of half.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:34:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
> > question to Gil:
> >
> > "Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are able
> > to ballistically match the gun to a recent murder. The weapon is traced to its owner who was the
> > prime suspect in the murder. Police have other evidence linking him to the crime but the gun is
> > essential to the prosecution's case. Do you honestly think the court is going to let a murderer
> > walk because the person who found the gun can't be positive it is the same gun he found and
> > turned over to the police."
> >
> > The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.
> So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
> Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
> And this time, you've even admitted it.
> SMH
>
> And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
> A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.

Did he mark it? Did he retain possession of it until the trial? At best he could say it looks like the weapon, and he believed it was the weapon, but he could NOT, with certitude say it was the weapon.

>
> In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.
> Not one.
>
> That's a big difference.
>
> 11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
>
> How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
> Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
> Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
> How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
> to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?

He doesn’t. He can’t. I believe his testimony was used to lay the groundwork for how the police came to be in possession of the weapon, and a policeman subsequently testified that yes, this weapon has been in our possession since it was turned over to us by Weiss.

>
> To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.
> I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.
>
> But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.
> You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.
> When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
> That's the way I work.
>
> And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through.
> You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.
> "What about this case" and "what about that case".
>
> The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.

So we can rule out conspiracy in the JFK assignation?

> And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,
> you've failed to make your point.

The point is Weiss didn’t need to able to identify the weapon for it to be admissible.
These claims are all wrong:

[Hank Sienzant]

The citations to a published law journal article have been ignored by you.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:51:14 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:34:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
> > > question to Gil:
> > >
> > > "Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are able
> > > to ballistically match the gun to a recent murder. The weapon is traced to its owner who was the
> > > prime suspect in the murder. Police have other evidence linking him to the crime but the gun is
> > > essential to the prosecution's case. Do you honestly think the court is going to let a murderer
> > > walk because the person who found the gun can't be positive it is the same gun he found and
> > > turned over to the police."
> > >
> > > The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.
> > So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
> > Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
> > And this time, you've even admitted it.
> > SMH
> >
> > And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
> >
> It was a hypothetical based on a real case.
> > A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.
> The witness identified the gun from memory, many months after finding it and turning it over to
> the Van Nuys police. In another thread, you scoffed at the idea that chain of custody could be
> established based on the memory of the cops. You wrote:
>
> "I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.
> NOT"

The very next witness after Weiss is the Van Nuys police officer — Michael Watson — who took possession of the weapon in the Weiss home. The next witness after that is the officer from the LAPD — Robert Calkins — who took possession of the weapon from the Van Nuys PD. That is one way chain of custody is established.

Gil doesn’t understand that and that is the source of his problem. Note there is no testimony from anyone at the Van Nuys police department property room testifying that this was the same weapon as received. It is presumed the VNPD did the appropriate job of handling this. And this is covered in the law article I’ve cited in the past — bylaw, people are presumed to have done their routine jobs and these things are not a subject of dispute.

Unless the guy in docket is Lee Oswald.

According to Gil, however, because no *forms* were submitted, then this weapon, the bullets and the shells are inadmissible, and therefore everyone in the Manson Family was found not guilty.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody! But he can't explain why Steve Weiss helped to bring James Powell a camera!

[John Corbett]

I'm sure after Gil gets Oswald acquitted in his virtual trial, he'll take up Manson's case. Defending
dead murderers seems to be his passion.

[Hank Sienzant]

No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

> But he can't explain why Steve Weiss helped to bring James Powell a camera!

I didn’t know Steve Weiss had anything to do with the JFK assassination.

I’ll tell you what I tell Ben: Post an argument, support it with evidence, and show how this relates to the Kennedy assassination.

Good luck — Steve Weiss would have been only four years old in 1963, as he was ten in 1969.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Steve Weiss was with the Army 112th intelligence unit in Dallas on the day that JFK was assassinated by conspiracy. You know. The topic of this newsgroup. No argument. But he and Ed Coyle did bring a camera to James Powell at the TSBD after the assassination. You must be jabbering about some off topic Steve Weiss.

[John Corbett]

But did he have an alibi?

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:43:41 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
> I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal:
> https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

Experts give opinions.
Let's lookm at definitions:
"Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, is the chronological DOCUMENTATION OR PAPER TRAIL that records the sequence of custody,
control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of materials, including physical or electronic evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

Post the paper trail of the evidence, oh More Knowledgeable One.

[John Corbett]

So you think Wikipedia is a reliable law journal. No wonder your ideas are so FUBAR.

As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, the COC documentation is something
that is required for TRIAL. Since there was no trial, that documentation was never required.
Your arguments presume several things.

1. That the forms had to be prepared at the time the evidence was gathered.
2. That the forms weren't prepared at the time the evidence was gathered.
3. That the forms should have been filed even when it was known there would be no trial.
4. That the forms were not filed even after it was known there would be no trial.

You've provided nothing that shows it was a requirement to prepare the forms as the evidence
was being gathered. Since the COC forms must list everyone who handles the evidence, it
seems kind of strange that the form would be prepared before everyone who was going to handle
the evidence had done so.

If the normal routine was to maintain a COC log as the evidence passed from one person to the
next, how do you know that log hadn't been started? You simply assume what you haven't proven.

If you had been able to establish that the normal routine would be to start a COC log as the
evidence is gathered and passed from one person to the next, the next thing for you to do would
be to establish that those logs would have been permanently filed after it became known there
would be no trial and hence no need for the documentation. Many cases get plea bargained
before going to trial so you need to establish that in these cases, the documentation is stored.
You also need to establish what the standard retention period would be for such documentation.
Electronic filing of documents is a relatively new development. Documents used to be stored
in file cabinets and space for such documents was not unlimited. It would be a normal routine
to periodically clean out documents that were no longer needed. Vital documents might have
been micro-filmed, but you would need to establish that COC documents for trials that never
took place would have been deemed vital enough to micro-film.

Lastly, if you were ever able to establish that the documentation you demand should have been
created at the time the evidence was gathered and that it should have been stored permanently
in some form, you still have not shown that it was not done for the evidence gathered which
implicates Oswald. To do that, you would have determine where and how those documents
should have been permanently kept and that they are not where they are suppose to be.

Your arguments are based on a lot of unanswered questions that you have just assumed the
answers for. The reason the rest of us don't fret about these questions is because we know it is
moot. The documentation would only have been required for a criminal trial that was never going
to take place. The WC had no requirement for such documentation in order to consider the
evidence. They took testimony from the individuals who took part in gathering and analyzing
the evidence in order to validate its authenticity. Anyone who is interested in learning the truth
of the JFK assassination doesn't need the documentation you have demanded in order to
consider the evidence. The testimony validating the evidence is available to anyone with
internet access.

It is clear you have no interest in determining the truth. You are trying to get you deceased client
acquitted in your imaginary trial by dismissing the evidence against him based on technicalities.
Had Oswald actually gone to trial, I have no doubt his real attorneys would have demanded that
all the I's be dotted and all the T's be crossed in validating the evidence against their client. I
also have no doubt that the prosecution would have been able to do so had it ever become a
requirement. Since the trial never took place, there was no need for them to have done so.

[Bud]

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:56:55 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:43:41 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >> No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
> > I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal:
> > https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
> Experts give opinions.

Experts give expert opinion in fields they have expertise in, stupid.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 10:56:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< lying bullshit deleted >

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.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ

PROVE IT. Post the documentation.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:11:56 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> Experts give expert opinion in fields they have expertise in, stupid.

That explains why you never give an expert opinion.
You just open your mouth about things you have no knowledge about.
That is, unless it's someone in person. Then you STFU like a horse's ass in fly season.

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.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ

You wanna open your mouth about the chain of custody ?
I'll give you the same challenge I gave Hanky Panky and the liar Corbett:

Post the documentation on the evidence, stupid.
Or go play with your dollies, sweetheart and let real men discuss this case.

[Bud]

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:33:51 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:11:56 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Experts give expert opinion in fields they have expertise in, stupid.
> That explains why you never give an expert opinion.
> You just open your mouth about things you have no knowledge about.

I know that experts give expert opinions in the areas of their expertise. I was explaining this to an idiot.

> That is, unless it's someone in person. Then you STFU like a horse's ass in fly season.

Are you any smarter now than the last time I explained this to you?

> 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.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
> You wanna open your mouth about the chain of custody ?

You wanna support your claim that the first person to see evidence starts the chain of custody?

> I'll give you the same challenge I gave Hanky Panky and the liar Corbett:
>
> Post the documentation on the evidence, stupid.

Did that. With the jacket it is written right on the jacket.

> Or go play with your dollies, sweetheart and let real men discuss this case.

You run from every idea men advance.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:28:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 10:56:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> < lying bullshit deleted >

You delete everything you have no rebuttal for.

>
> 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.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
> PROVE IT. Post the documentation.

There is no chain-of-custody issue because the documentation is not required. This has been
explained to you numerous times yet you continue to whine about it like a broken record.

[Bud]

Gil continues to Dunning-Kruger his way through life. The conspiracy folk are both astounded at the DPD`s conviction rates while simultaneously claiming they had no idea how to process evidence in manner that would allow it to be accepted in a court of law.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:45:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 04:31:53 -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 Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:13:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 04:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 12:05:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Yesterday I found the transcript of Steve Weiss's entire testimony..

The fact that he was called to testify is PROOF that you're lying
about chain of custody issues.

Live with that fact. Own it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:45:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>One of the things Gil wrote in the thread you have referenced is this:

>
>"I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers."

You still can't quite figure out why you needed to lie about the chain
of custody for evidence in this case.

Nor have you retracted your lie.

Don't you think *that* should be the first step of an honest man?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 04:51:13 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:34:20?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
>>> question to Gil:
>>>
>>> "Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are able
>>> to ballistically match the gun to a recent murder. The weapon is traced to its owner who was the
>>> prime suspect in the murder. Police have other evidence linking him to the crime but the gun is
>>> essential to the prosecution's case. Do you honestly think the court is going to let a murderer
>>> walk because the person who found the gun can't be positive it is the same gun he found and
>>> turned over to the police."
>>>
>>> The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.
>> So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
>> Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
>> And this time, you've even admitted it.
>> SMH
>>
>> And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
>>
>It was a hypothetical based on a real case.

Nah... it was a lie that ended up supporting what Gil has pointed out
about the importance of chain of custody.

You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 06:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 02:34:18 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
>> question to Gil:
>>
>> "Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are able
>> to ballistically match the gun to a recent murder. The weapon is traced to its owner who was the
>> prime suspect in the murder. Police have other evidence linking him to the crime but the gun is
>> essential to the prosecution's case. Do you honestly think the court is going to let a murderer
>> walk because the person who found the gun can't be positive it is the same gun he found and
>> turned over to the police."
>>
>> The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.
>
>So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
>Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
>And this time, you've even admitted it.
>SMH
>
>And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.

>A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.
>

>In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.

>Not one.
>
>That's a big difference.
>
>11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
>
>How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
>Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
>Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
>How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
>to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?
>
>To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.
>I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.

Nah, he didn't even know that the kid was called to testify...

>But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.

>You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.

>When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
>That's the way I work.
>
>And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through.
>You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.

>"What about this case" and "what about that case".
>

>The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.

>And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,
>you've failed to make your point.

Actually, the fact that he was called to testify INSTANTLY proves you
right, and Corbutt a moron.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 04:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 05:01:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I used to work in downtown Columbus, OH...

Nobody cares...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 04:52:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 12:34:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 15:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>The citations to a published law journal article have been ignored by you.

Your posted statements have been ignored by you, you can't defend 'em:

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 16:28:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Gil doesn’t understand...

Explain it to him: You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:34:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 08:28:00 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 10:56:22?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>< lying bullshit deleted >
>

>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.
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
>PROVE IT. Post the documentation.

He can't. Corbutt simply lied, and neither him, nor any fellow
believer of his will acknowledge this blatant lie.

That makes Huckster a liar.

That makes Chuckles a liar.

That makes Chickenshit a liar.

That makes Von Penis a liar.

That makes Steven a liar.

And CERTAINLY that proves Corbutt a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 07:56:20 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:56:55?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:43:41?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> >> No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
>> > I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal:
>> > https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
>> Experts give opinions.

>> Let's lookm at definitions:
>> "Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, is the chronological DOCUMENTATION OR PAPER TRAIL that records the sequence of custody,
>> control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of materials, including physical or electronic evidence."
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
>>
>> Post the paper trail of the evidence, oh More Knowledgeable One.
>

>So you think Wikipedia is a reliable law journal. No wonder your ideas are so FUBAR.

Amusingly, believers didn't make this point when THEY cite Wikipedia.

Where's your cite?

You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 03:43:40 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>I’ll tell you what I tell Ben:

Nothing... you'll tell me nothing:

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 08:11:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 04:27:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>But did he have an alibi?


Steve Weiss demolished your sad argument.

You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 20:09:20 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm sure after Gil ...

Can you name this logical fallacy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 04:56:53 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:43:41?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
>> I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal:
>> https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
>
>Experts give opinions.
>Let's lookm at definitions:
>"Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, is the chronological DOCUMENTATION OR PAPER TRAIL that records the sequence of custody,
>control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of materials, including physical or electronic evidence."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
>
>Post the paper trail of the evidence, oh More Knowledgeable One.

There you go again, Gil... citing another authority for your claims.

I see Huckster, Chuckles, Chickenshit, and Corbutt's yellow backs...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 08:33:49 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:11:56?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> Experts give expert opinion in fields they have expertise in, stupid.
>
>That explains why you never give an expert opinion.
>You just open your mouth about things you have no knowledge about.
>That is, unless it's someone in person. Then you STFU like a horse's ass in fly season.

>
>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.
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>

>You wanna open your mouth about the chain of custody ?
>I'll give you the same challenge I gave Hanky Panky and the liar Corbett:
>
>Post the documentation on the evidence, stupid.
>Or go play with your dollies, sweetheart and let real men discuss this case.


Nah, Chickenshit's already a proven liar. He can't do what Corbutt
can't do...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 13:06:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 10:16:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:28:01?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 10:56:22?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> < lying bullshit deleted >
>

>You delete everything you have no rebuttal for.


You refuse to answer everything you have no rebuttal for.

>> 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.
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>>

>> PROVE IT. Post the documentation.
>

>There is no chain-of-custody issue because the documentation is not required.


That was *NOT* your origjinal argument... you argued that there was no
chain of custody issues because THERE EXISTED THE DOCUMENTATION.


>This has been
>explained to you numerous times yet you continue to whine about it like a broken record.


You asserted that the documentation exists... yet you can't cite it.

You lied.

It's that simple.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 4:06:07 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:16:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:28:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> > > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 10:56:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > < lying bullshit deleted >
> > You delete everything you have no rebuttal for.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
> > >
> > > PROVE IT. Post the documentation.

> > There is no chain-of-custody issue because the documentation is not required. This has been

> > explained to you numerous times yet you continue to whine about it like a broken record.

> Gil continues to Dunning-Kruger his way through life. The conspiracy folk are both astounded at the DPD`s conviction rates while simultaneously claiming they had no idea how to process evidence in manner that would allow it to be accepted in a court of law.

Comically, I just counted (without reading) 26 replies by Yellowpanties in this one thread alone,
all posted at the same time. That is the definition of swamp posting. I wonder how many he will
post in other threads. Not that it matters. Not that he matters.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 06:24:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Comically, I just counted (without reading) 26 replies ...

You mean there weren't any posts to reply to?

Why do my responses deserve any notice, while the posts I'm responding
to get a free pass?

Are you a moron?