info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Silly Gilly cites a medical journal regarding chain-of-custody.
235 views
Skip to first unread message
John Corbett
Oct 12, 2023, 10:52:55 AM10/12/23
to
Gil cited the following article from a medical journal for information about
chain-of-custody:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
Anyone who reads the article can see the main thrust of this article is about
drug testing of athletes suspected of using performance enhancing drugs.
The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of
evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions. Here is a
more pertinent article that discusses chain of custody as it pertains to
criminal prosecutions:
https://www.thoughtco.com/chain-of-custody-4589132
They provide the following definition for chain-of-custody:
[quote on]
Chain of Custody Definition
In practice, a chain of custody is a chronological paper trail documenting when, how, and by whom individual items of physical or electronic evidence—such as cell phone logs—were collected, handled, analyzed, or otherwise controlled during an investigation. Under the law, an item will not be accepted as evidence during the trial—will not be seen by the jury—unless the chain of custody is an unbroken and fully documented trail without gaps or discrepancies. In order to convict a defendant of a crime, the evidence against them must have been handled in a meticulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination.
[quote off]
Notice the requirement is DOCUMENTATION. It is not necessary for the
first person in the chain or anyone in the chain to have to positively identify
the item as the one they saw or handled. As long as the prosecution can
document who found an item, whom they gave it to, and every person along
the chain, the evidence is acceptable. Since Oswald never went to trial, there
was never a need for the prosecutors to ever provide such documentation.
Gil takes the silly position that because the DPD and the prosecutors never
made public the documentation for a trial that never took place, they would
have been unable to do so.
The silliest thing of all is that even if Gil were right that the prosecutors would have been unable to establish chain-of-custody, a claim he can't prove,
it would not require us to disregard any evidence that helps us determine the
truth of the JFK assassination. We are not bound by the same rules that
apply in criminal trials because we are not in position to deprive Oswald or
anybody else of their legal rights. Our sole concern should be whether any
piece of evidence is genuine. Gil can provide no evidence that the various
pieces of forensic evidence such as bullets, shells, fibers, Oswald's jacket,
etc. were planted or tampered with. In absence of such evidence, there is no
reason for us to believe such evidence isn't authentic, especially since it all
points to the same conclusion as all the other available evidence. There is
nothing in the body of evidence that doesn't fit. For Gil to argue for Oswald's
innocence, he is forced to argue that we should disregard all of the evidence.
What a silly exercise by a very silly man.
chain-of-custody:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
Anyone who reads the article can see the main thrust of this article is about
drug testing of athletes suspected of using performance enhancing drugs.
The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of
evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions. Here is a
more pertinent article that discusses chain of custody as it pertains to
criminal prosecutions:
https://www.thoughtco.com/chain-of-custody-4589132
They provide the following definition for chain-of-custody:
[quote on]
Chain of Custody Definition
In practice, a chain of custody is a chronological paper trail documenting when, how, and by whom individual items of physical or electronic evidence—such as cell phone logs—were collected, handled, analyzed, or otherwise controlled during an investigation. Under the law, an item will not be accepted as evidence during the trial—will not be seen by the jury—unless the chain of custody is an unbroken and fully documented trail without gaps or discrepancies. In order to convict a defendant of a crime, the evidence against them must have been handled in a meticulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination.
[quote off]
Notice the requirement is DOCUMENTATION. It is not necessary for the
first person in the chain or anyone in the chain to have to positively identify
the item as the one they saw or handled. As long as the prosecution can
document who found an item, whom they gave it to, and every person along
the chain, the evidence is acceptable. Since Oswald never went to trial, there
was never a need for the prosecutors to ever provide such documentation.
Gil takes the silly position that because the DPD and the prosecutors never
made public the documentation for a trial that never took place, they would
have been unable to do so.
The silliest thing of all is that even if Gil were right that the prosecutors would have been unable to establish chain-of-custody, a claim he can't prove,
it would not require us to disregard any evidence that helps us determine the
truth of the JFK assassination. We are not bound by the same rules that
apply in criminal trials because we are not in position to deprive Oswald or
anybody else of their legal rights. Our sole concern should be whether any
piece of evidence is genuine. Gil can provide no evidence that the various
pieces of forensic evidence such as bullets, shells, fibers, Oswald's jacket,
etc. were planted or tampered with. In absence of such evidence, there is no
reason for us to believe such evidence isn't authentic, especially since it all
points to the same conclusion as all the other available evidence. There is
nothing in the body of evidence that doesn't fit. For Gil to argue for Oswald's
innocence, he is forced to argue that we should disregard all of the evidence.
What a silly exercise by a very silly man.
Steven Galbraith
Oct 12, 2023, 12:20:32 PM10/12/23
to
Anyone suggesting that would be laughed out of the room. Which is what we need to do with this chain of possession/custody issue involving Oswald. It's risible.
Ben Holmes
Oct 12, 2023, 12:41:57 PM10/12/23
to
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> conspiracists.
Who are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> conspiracists.
You're simply a coward.
> Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. In
> it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
> by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
> FBI was behind the assassination.
carry with them another form of authentication.
> Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracists
documents can self-authenticate.
> - would say, "What about chain of possession? Is it clean? If it was
> broken then it's illegitimate and we can't use it since a court
> wouldn't allow it." No one.
critics nor believers would demand a chain of custody in such a case.
> Yes, we would all ask for *verification* about the diary. Is it
> Hoover's handwriting? Is it legitimate? But we wouldn't say, "But the
> chain of custody is broken, we don't know how it got to us. Therefore
> we throw it out."
>Anyone suggesting that would be laughed out of the room. Which is
> what we need to do with this chain of possession/custody issue
> involving Oswald. It's risible.
ROTFMAO!!!
YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
do with chain of custody.
You're a moron.
Ben Holmes
Oct 12, 2023, 12:42:09 PM10/12/23
to
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 07:52:53 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gil cited the following article from a medical journal for information about
>chain-of-custody:
>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
>
>Anyone who reads the article...
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gil cited the following article from a medical journal for information about
>chain-of-custody:
>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
>
We have proof that you couldn't read past the fourth sentence.
Stupid, aren't you?
Gil Jesus
Oct 12, 2023, 12:50:33 PM10/12/23
to
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> And anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
> ROTFMAO!!!
>
>
> YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
> OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
> do with chain of custody.
>
> You're a moron.
He is a moron because his example ( Hoover's diary ) is not evidence in a murder case.
> And anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
> ROTFMAO!!!
>
>
> YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
> OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
> do with chain of custody.
>
> You're a moron.
He's comparing apples and oranges.
And even if such a thing occurred, he wouldn't believe it anyways. LOL
BTW, can any of these assholes produce the chain of custody forms from the Dallas Police ?
I can't find them.
Bud
Oct 12, 2023, 2:30:18 PM10/12/23
to
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> > backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> > conspiracists.
> Who are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
Impossible to reason with conspiracy hobbyists.
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> > backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> > conspiracists.
> Who are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
Ben Holmes
Oct 12, 2023, 2:42:52 PM10/12/23
to
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:30:17 -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.
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.
John Corbett
Oct 12, 2023, 5:46:42 PM10/12/23
to
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:30:18 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> > <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> > > backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> > > conspiracists.
> > Who are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
> Impossible to reason with conspiracy hobbyists.
Because they are unreasonable people who don't know how to reason.
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> > <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> > > backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> > > conspiracists.
> > Who are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
> Impossible to reason with conspiracy hobbyists.
Ben Holmes
Oct 12, 2023, 5:56:19 PM10/12/23
to
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 14:46:41 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Because they are unreasonable people who don't know how to reason.
Who do you believe you are convincing with these logical fallacies?
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Because they are unreasonable people who don't know how to reason.
Amusingly, you've quite convincingly demonstrated your lack of
reasoning ability with your lies about chain of custody (and the FBI
Summary Report).
LOL!!!
Bud
Oct 12, 2023, 6:14:22 PM10/12/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 12, 2023, 6:20:04 PM10/12/23
to
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
> You`ll notice...
Cowardice?
wrote:
> You`ll notice...
Cowardice?
Bud
Oct 12, 2023, 6:25:56 PM10/12/23
to
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 6:20:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > You`ll notice...
>
> Cowardice?
That too, but also an inability to apply reason to information.
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > You`ll notice...
>
> Cowardice?
Ben Holmes
Oct 12, 2023, 6:29:10 PM10/12/23
to
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:25:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 6:20:04?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > You`ll notice...
>>
>> Cowardice?
>
> That too...
As demonstrated right here:
wrote:
>On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 6:20:04?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > You`ll notice...
>>
>> Cowardice?
>
As demonstrated right here:
Bud
Oct 12, 2023, 6:33:11 PM10/12/23
to
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:50:33 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > And anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
> > ROTFMAO!!!
> >
> >
> > YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
> > OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
> > do with chain of custody.
> >
> > You're a moron.
> He is a moron because his example ( Hoover's diary ) is not evidence in a murder case.
Can you show that the chain of custody is handled different in murder cases than other cases?
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > And anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
> > ROTFMAO!!!
> >
> >
> > YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
> > OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
> > do with chain of custody.
> >
> > You're a moron.
> He is a moron because his example ( Hoover's diary ) is not evidence in a murder case.
Can you show when the chain of custody starts?
Ben Holmes
Oct 12, 2023, 7:21:30 PM10/12/23
to
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
> Can you show...
Can you answer?
wrote:
> Can you show...
Can you answer?
Bud
Oct 12, 2023, 7:28:35 PM10/12/23
to
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 6:29:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:25:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 6:20:04?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > You`ll notice...
> >>
> >> Cowardice?
> >
> > That too...
>
> As demonstrated right here:
You sure did.
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:25:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 6:20:04?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > You`ll notice...
> >>
> >> Cowardice?
> >
> > That too...
>
> As demonstrated right here:
Bud
Oct 12, 2023, 7:29:13 PM10/12/23
to
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 7:21:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Can you show...
>
> Can you answer?
Why do you say I haven`t.
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Can you show...
>
> Can you answer?
Ben Holmes
Oct 12, 2023, 7:33:07 PM10/12/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 12, 2023, 7:33:21 PM10/12/23
to
Gil Jesus
Oct 13, 2023, 5:54:01 AM10/13/23
to
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>
> The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.
There you go lying again.
You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.
That's a lie.
ANY sports organization that uses mandatory drug testing for its athletes may use proven and legal methods to obtain and handle blood and urine samples,
but they don't "establish their own rules for evidence handling".
That's a lie.
They're required to follow legal protocol in handling the evidence just like everyone else, otherwise, they'd be sued up the ass.
My link to the NIH was an example.
Chain of custody begins at the at the time of discovery for ALL evidence collected, regardless of what they're collecting and who collects it.
Including electronic evidence recovered from a computer
https://trustifi.com/blog/what-is-the-chain-of-custody-for-email-discovery/
In criminal justice courses, they teach that the Chain of Custody begins at discovery for ALL forensic evidence:
"The chain of custody begins when the evidence is discovered."
https://quizlet.com/158209007/forensic-science-the-basics-chapter-2-flash-cards/
But then again, I guess you know better than they do.
Bud
Oct 13, 2023, 6:05:25 AM10/13/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 5:54:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >
> > The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.
> There you go lying again.
>
> You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.
> That's a lie.
>
> ANY sports organization that uses mandatory drug testing for its athletes may use proven and legal methods to obtain and handle blood and urine samples,
> but they don't "establish their own rules for evidence handling".
> That's a lie.
> They're required to follow legal protocol in handling the evidence just like everyone else, otherwise, they'd be sued up the ass.
>
> My link to the NIH was an example.
> Chain of custody begins at the at the time of discovery for ALL evidence collected, regardless of what they're collecting and who collects it.
What is the legal criteria for "discovery"?
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >
> > The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.
> There you go lying again.
>
> You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.
> That's a lie.
>
> ANY sports organization that uses mandatory drug testing for its athletes may use proven and legal methods to obtain and handle blood and urine samples,
> but they don't "establish their own rules for evidence handling".
> That's a lie.
> They're required to follow legal protocol in handling the evidence just like everyone else, otherwise, they'd be sued up the ass.
>
> My link to the NIH was an example.
> Chain of custody begins at the at the time of discovery for ALL evidence collected, regardless of what they're collecting and who collects it.
When does the chain of custody begin?
Gil Jesus
Oct 13, 2023, 6:08:08 AM10/13/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:05:25 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> What is the legal criteria for "discovery"?
When you see it.
> What is the legal criteria for "discovery"?
> When does the chain of custody begin?
John Corbett
Oct 13, 2023, 6:58:48 AM10/13/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 5:54:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >
> > The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.
> There you go lying again.
>
> You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.
> That's a lie.
I made no such claim. You made that up. IOW, you lied. I claimed they adopted their own rules.
> >
> > The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.
> There you go lying again.
>
> You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.
> That's a lie.
While those rules may have been modeled after requirements in a criminal prosecution, those
rules are not binding on the courts. The courts have established their own rules.
>
> ANY sports organization that uses mandatory drug testing for its athletes may use proven and legal methods to obtain and handle blood and urine samples,
> but they don't "establish their own rules for evidence handling".
> That's a lie.
> They're required to follow legal protocol in handling the evidence just like everyone else, otherwise, they'd be sued up the ass.
Cite the requirement.
> ANY sports organization that uses mandatory drug testing for its athletes may use proven and legal methods to obtain and handle blood and urine samples,
> but they don't "establish their own rules for evidence handling".
> That's a lie.
> They're required to follow legal protocol in handling the evidence just like everyone else, otherwise, they'd be sued up the ass.
>
> My link to the NIH was an example.
An irrelevant one.
> My link to the NIH was an example.
> Chain of custody begins at the at the time of discovery for ALL evidence collected, regardless of what they're collecting and who collects it.
>
> Including electronic evidence recovered from a computer
> https://trustifi.com/blog/what-is-the-chain-of-custody-for-email-discovery/
>
Why would you bring up rules of evidence for emails when there was no such thing at the time
> Including electronic evidence recovered from a computer
> https://trustifi.com/blog/what-is-the-chain-of-custody-for-email-discovery/
>
of the assassination. It seems you are just throwing shit on the wall and hoping some of it
sticks.
> In criminal justice courses, they teach that the Chain of Custody begins at discovery for ALL forensic evidence:
> "The chain of custody begins when the evidence is discovered."
> https://quizlet.com/158209007/forensic-science-the-basics-chapter-2-flash-cards/
>
> But then again, I guess you know better than they do.
claimed it is established. It is established through a PAPER TRAIL. It is not a requirement that
every person who handled a piece of evidence to be able to positively identify it. I've also pointed
out that the requirement only pertains to court proceedings. Once Oswald was killed there was
no prosecution and no requirement to produce the paper trail. The WC was not required to have
that paper trail in order to consider the various pieces of evidence against Oswald. The took
testimony that established how the evidence was handled. Those looking at the evidence from a
historical perspective aren't required to see that paper trail either. Just because you choose to
foolishly turn a blind eye to the evidence is no reason everyone else should. But you have never
been interested in the truth of the assassination. All you want to do is convince people they
should disregard the evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt. You are pretending to be his
defense counsel as well as the judge for your make believe trial that is never going to happen.
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 11:35:47 AM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 02:53:58 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
These morons can't quite figure out the PURPOSE of chain of custody...
which would, of course, be defeated if it didn't begin at the point of
discovery.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
which would, of course, be defeated if it didn't begin at the point of
discovery.
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 11:36:18 AM10/13/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 11:37:30 AM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 03:58:46 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 5:54:01?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
You won't dare answer, of course...
You're a coward.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 5:54:01?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> >
>> > The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.
>> There you go lying again.
>>
>> You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.
>> That's a lie.
>
>I made no such claim.
When does chain of custody begin, Corbutt?
>> >
>> > The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.
>> There you go lying again.
>>
>> You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.
>> That's a lie.
>
>I made no such claim.
You won't dare answer, of course...
You're a coward.
Bud
Oct 13, 2023, 3:33:00 PM10/13/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:08:08 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:05:25 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > What is the legal criteria for "discovery"?
> When you see it.
You`ll never support that.
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:05:25 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > What is the legal criteria for "discovery"?
> When you see it.
> > When does the chain of custody begin?
> When you see it.
Anyone with the ability to reason can see the flaws in what you are saying (which leaves Ben and you out). Off the top of my head...
Three cops enter a room an there is a bloody knife on the floor. By your "thinking", unless this could be determined somehow it could not be used as evidence.
A cop is chasing an assailant with a gun. When a gun is empty the perp throws it at the cop. The cop bats away the gun, and continues the pursuit. A different cop picks up the gun. By your "thinking" the gun cannot be used as evidence, as it wasn`t the cop in pursuit who recovered it.
There is a soda bottle at a murder scene. A dozen cops pass it without any thought, but then one decides it could be evidence and takes it for processing, and it yields prints of a suspect. By your "thinking" this bottle cannot be used as evidence because the first person who saw it didn`t recover it for evidence.
I can think of more, and you can`t think at all.
And you will *never* support that the legal criteria for starting a chain of custody is when the evidence is first seen. Ever.
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 4:02:50 PM10/13/23
to
Hank Sienzant
Oct 16, 2023, 9:57:11 PM10/16/23
to
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> > backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> > conspiracists.
> Who are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> > backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> > conspiracists.
> Who are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
>
> You're simply a coward.
> > Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. In
> > it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
> > by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
> > FBI was behind the assassination.
> Clearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
> carry with them another form of authentication.
> > Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracists
> Nor anyone else intelligent enough to understand that handwritten
> documents can self-authenticate.
Really? A handwritten document can self-authenticate? How would it do that? Would the handwritten document fill out a form that Gil insists is necessary (but doesn’t establish that). Would this handwritten document swear to tell the truth, and then testify in a legal proceeding to its authenticity?
> > Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. In
> > it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
> > by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
> > FBI was behind the assassination.
> Clearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
> carry with them another form of authentication.
> > Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracists
> Nor anyone else intelligent enough to understand that handwritten
> documents can self-authenticate.
Wouldn’t you actually need a handwriting expert to examine the original questioned document(s) and other known documents written by the subject person to compare the handwriting and make a determination as to whether the questioned document is legitimate or a forgery?
Your argument that a handwritten document is somehow self-authenticating is nonsense.
And isn’t it true that even where this was done for Oswald’s handwriting and the questioned documents verified as Oswald’s handwriting by experts, critics still question the authenticity of those documents?
For example, the original money order that was used to purchased the rifle that was found on the sixth floor and matched ballistically to three shells found in the building, two large fragments found in the President’s limo, and a nearly-while bullet found in Parkland Hospital where the two shooting victims where taken.
Don’t critics question the legitimacy of that money order?
> > - would say, "What about chain of possession? Is it clean? If it was
> > broken then it's illegitimate and we can't use it since a court
> > wouldn't allow it." No one.
> True. But you haven't made any point when you agree that neither
> critics nor believers would demand a chain of custody in such a case.
> > Yes, we would all ask for *verification* about the diary. Is it
> > Hoover's handwriting? Is it legitimate? But we wouldn't say, "But the
> > chain of custody is broken, we don't know how it got to us. Therefore
> > we throw it out."
> Neither would critics.
> >Anyone suggesting that would be laughed out of the room. Which is
> > what we need to do with this chain of possession/custody issue
> > involving Oswald. It's risible.
Hank Sienzant
Oct 16, 2023, 10:17:37 PM10/16/23
to
Critics like to pretend that since person A didn’t mark the evidence (or, in Gil’s case, fill out a form) then the evidence is not admissible. That’s untrue.
And in any case, the evidence is admissible even if person A doesn’t know the name of the person he gave the evidence to (like for CE399) and can’t swear it’s the same evidence he handled.
See this quote on the second page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
The evidence is admissible.
Also, don’t judge this case by today’s standards as you appear to be doing. While a paper trail may be required in court cases today, Gil has not shown it was required in 1963, nor has he established that the evidence would be inadmissible absent that paper trail. I guess he expects us to take us assertions on faith.
> It is not a requirement that
> every person who handled a piece of evidence to be able to positively identify it. I've also pointed
> out that the requirement only pertains to court proceedings.
I do know I’ve cited a legal publication where it’s stated the evidence is admissible even where there are questions regarding the legitimacy of the evidence.
Hank Sienzant
Oct 16, 2023, 10:30:08 PM10/16/23
to
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. In
> > it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
> > by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
> > FBI was behind the assassination.
> Clearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
> carry with them another form of authentication.
On the other hand, there’s this:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. In
> > it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
> > by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
> > FBI was behind the assassination.
> Clearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
> carry with them another form of authentication.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Diaries
Hank Sienzant
Oct 16, 2023, 11:07:15 PM10/16/23
to
This was written in 1983 so it more closely reflects the standards of 1963 than anything cited by Gil to date.
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
Paraphrasing, the court is entitled to presume officials did their duty in handling the evidence, absent evidence to the contrary. Gil has provided no evidence of malfeasance. This also affirms the evidence would be admissible, contrary to Gil’s assertions.
John Corbett
Oct 17, 2023, 10:41:54 AM10/17/23
to
Forms might have been filled out as well. Since there was no grand jury nor criminal trial for a
man who was dead, there was no need to do any of the above. It all become moot when Oswald
was legally declared dead.
> Critics like to pretend that since person A didn’t mark the evidence (or, in Gil’s case, fill out a form) then the evidence is not admissible. That’s untrue.
>
> And in any case, the evidence is admissible even if person A doesn’t know the name of the person he gave the evidence to (like for CE399) and can’t swear it’s the same evidence he handled.
>
> See this quote on the second page here:
> https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
validity of CE399. They would have been told that it was positively matched to the rifle found on
the 6th floor to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, the same rifle that had fired the
fragmented bullet found in the limo and the shells found at the window. Applying common sense,
they would have concluded that CE399 was the bullet that had passed through the bodies of
JFK and JBC. Since Gil objects to reasoning and he is the presiding judge at Oswald's
theoretical trial, he would instruct the jury not to use their common sense. Reasoning would not
be allowed in Gil's courtroom. For that matter, he would not have allowed the jury to see the rifle,
the bullets, or the shells.
>
> “The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
>
> The evidence is admissible.
>
> Also, don’t judge this case by today’s standards as you appear to be doing. While a paper trail may be required in court cases today, Gil has not shown it was required in 1963, nor has he established that the evidence would be inadmissible absent that paper trail. I guess he expects us to take us assertions on faith.
Ironically, it was the Warren Court that created many of these additional layers of evidence
> “The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
>
> The evidence is admissible.
>
> Also, don’t judge this case by today’s standards as you appear to be doing. While a paper trail may be required in court cases today, Gil has not shown it was required in 1963, nor has he established that the evidence would be inadmissible absent that paper trail. I guess he expects us to take us assertions on faith.
validation, but all that was done post-assassination.
> > It is not a requirement that
> > every person who handled a piece of evidence to be able to positively identify it. I've also pointed
> > out that the requirement only pertains to court proceedings.
> *Maybe* it pertains to current court proceedings without exception. I don’t know.
>
> I do know I’ve cited a legal publication where it’s stated the evidence is admissible even where there are questions regarding the legitimacy of the evidence.
He simply makes assertions and demands we refute his unproven assertions. A classic case of
burden shifting.
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:58:26 AM10/18/23
to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -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?
<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
Oct 18, 2023, 9:58:26 AM10/18/23
to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 20:07:13 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:58:26 AM10/18/23
to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 18:57:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:58:29 AM10/18/23
to
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:41:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That could have and likely would have been done for the grand jury and/or at the criminal trial.
Sorry stupid, this isn't your original claim.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That could have and likely would have been done for the grand jury and/or at the criminal trial.
Lied, didn't you?
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:59:54 AM10/18/23
to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:17:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
Hank Sienzant
Oct 19, 2023, 2:40:52 AM10/19/23
to
He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a discussion about the evidence. Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims he’s falsely attributing to me.
NoTrueFlags Here
Oct 19, 2023, 2:43:46 AM10/19/23
to
Gil Jesus
Oct 19, 2023, 6:14:22 AM10/19/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:35:47 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> These morons can't quite figure out the PURPOSE of chain of custody... which would, of course, be defeated if it didn't begin at the point of discovery.
Exactly.
> These morons can't quite figure out the PURPOSE of chain of custody... which would, of course, be defeated if it didn't begin at the point of discovery.
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.
And that chain of custody does not start in an FBI lab, or with the second, third or fourth person who handled the evidence.
It begins at the crime scene or ( if it's found outside the crime scene ) the time of discovery.
And the basic rules regarding chain of custody, in the legal arena, are the same whether you're taking samples for drug testing, gathering electronic evidence, or
physical evidence in a criminal case. Those rules require that the identities of everyone who handles the evidence MUST BE DOCUMENTED with the name, date and time the evidence
was in their possession and why they had it.
There appears to be NO DOCUMENTED CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORDS for ANY of the evidence in this case.
And that fact alone should give any reasonable person pause to ask the question:
The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, so why weren't these documents filled out ?
And if these documents WERE filled out and destroyed after Oswald was dead and there'd be no trial, where's the record that the documents were destroyed ?
It's not rocket science. There's plenty of opportunity to tamper and substitute evidence in this case.
And with that opportunity comes plenty of doubt of Oswald's guilt.
It's hard to believe that there are people out there that are that stupid they can't see that.
John Corbett
Oct 19, 2023, 7:42:15 AM10/19/23
to
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:14:22 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:35:47 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > These morons can't quite figure out the PURPOSE of chain of custody... which would, of course, be defeated if it didn't begin at the point of discovery.
> Exactly.
> 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.
Bullshit. A claim you've made often and never supported by citing a recognized legal source.
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:35:47 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > These morons can't quite figure out the PURPOSE of chain of custody... which would, of course, be defeated if it didn't begin at the point of discovery.
> Exactly.
> 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.
You've cited sources which state chain-of-custody is required, but none that say identification
by the original source is necessary.
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.
> 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.
>
to believe the prosecutors could not have documented the chain-of-custody. The cops and
the prosecutors understood the rules of evidence. Do you really think they wouldn't have been
able to meet the requirements in the most important crime they ever prosecuted?
> And that chain of custody does not start in an FBI lab, or with the second, third or fourth person who handled the evidence.
> It begins at the crime scene or ( if it's found outside the crime scene ) the time of discovery.
>
> And the basic rules regarding chain of custody, in the legal arena, are the same whether you're taking samples for drug testing, gathering electronic evidence, or
> physical evidence in a criminal case. Those rules require that the identities of everyone who handles the evidence MUST BE DOCUMENTED with the name, date and time the evidence
> was in their possession and why they had it.
> There appears to be NO DOCUMENTED CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORDS for ANY of the evidence in this case.
The simple fact is it wouldn't have been needed until trial so it's very possible they never
produced the documentation since they knew there would have been no trial. That doesn't
mean they couldn't have produced the documentation had it been required. Apparently they
didn't know that in 2023 you would be conducting a virtual trial and you would need that
documentation to authenticate the evidence against your client.
>
> And that fact alone should give any reasonable person pause to ask the question:
> The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, so why weren't these documents filled out ?
Because it wouldn't be needed right away. Had there been a trial, it would have been months
> And that fact alone should give any reasonable person pause to ask the question:
> The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, so why weren't these documents filled out ?
after the crime.
>
> And if these documents WERE filled out and destroyed after Oswald was dead and there'd be no trial, where's the record that the documents were destroyed ?
Let us know when you find out the answers to your inane questions.
> And if these documents WERE filled out and destroyed after Oswald was dead and there'd be no trial, where's the record that the documents were destroyed ?
>
> It's not rocket science. There's plenty of opportunity to tamper and substitute evidence in this case.
> And with that opportunity comes plenty of doubt of Oswald's guilt.
Not among the intelligent people.
> It's not rocket science. There's plenty of opportunity to tamper and substitute evidence in this case.
> And with that opportunity comes plenty of doubt of Oswald's guilt.
>
> It's hard to believe that there are people out there that are that stupid they can't see that.
But apparently you are.
> It's hard to believe that there are people out there that are that stupid they can't see that.
I had started another thread on this subject.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/3F-uoKHVzgw
On October 14, Gil made the following statement:
"And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue. END OF STORY."
To which I replied:
"Yes it is. Until Gil wants to bring up his bogus claim in another thread."
It only took Gil 5 days to prove me right. It didn't take Nostradamus to figure that one out.
Gil Jesus
Oct 19, 2023, 8:03:43 AM10/19/23
to
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 7:42:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< a lot of bullshit opinion that was deleted >
ROFLMAO
< a lot of bullshit opinion that was deleted >
ROFLMAO
Ben Holmes
Oct 19, 2023, 9:18:54 AM10/19/23
to
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -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’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
It's time you start answering.
>He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
Both of you are running from false statements you've made.
> A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a
> discussion about the evidence.
It takes two.
> Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence
You're CLEARLY a blatant liar... trying to claim that the Autopsy
Report isn't evidence. Or the medical testimony...
You should be ashamed.
> and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims
> he’s falsely attributing to me.
And yet, I've CITED for your assertions.
You can't get away from this Huckster - you're going to keep seeing
this same post UNTIL YOU ANSWER IT.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -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’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
>He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
> A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a
> discussion about the evidence.
> Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence
Report isn't evidence. Or the medical testimony...
You should be ashamed.
> and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims
> he’s falsely attributing to me.
You can't get away from this Huckster - you're going to keep seeing
this same post UNTIL YOU ANSWER IT.
Ben Holmes
Oct 19, 2023, 9:18:57 AM10/19/23
to
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 04:42:13 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:14:22?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>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.
If you're stupid enough to think that the police didn't mark the gun
as the one they received, then you're truly a moron.
>> 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.
>>
>Chain-of-custody is required to be established at trial.
Cite for that claim.
> Had Oswad been on trial, there is no reason
>to believe the prosecutors could not have documented the chain-of-custody.
Yes, there *IS* reason. You're lying again.
Who found the jacket?
>The cops and
>the prosecutors understood the rules of evidence. Do you really think they wouldn't have been
>able to meet the requirements in the most important crime they ever prosecuted?
They PROVABLY could not have.
And you're quite stupid indeed to think that there isn't evidence that
is attempted to be brought to trial that doesn't get excluded every
single day somewhere in America.
>> And that chain of custody does not start in an FBI lab, or with the second, third or fourth person who handled the evidence.
>> It begins at the crime scene or ( if it's found outside the crime scene ) the time of discovery.
>>
>> And the basic rules regarding chain of custody, in the legal arena, are the same whether you're taking samples for drug testing, gathering electronic evidence, or
>> physical evidence in a criminal case. Those rules require that the identities of everyone who handles the evidence MUST BE DOCUMENTED with the name, date and time the evidence
>> was in their possession and why they had it.
>
>And you think the DPD and prosecutors would not have been able to do that. Why?
Because they couldn't.
Ask Westbrook.
>> There appears to be NO DOCUMENTED CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORDS for ANY of the evidence in this case.
>
>You don't know whether that documentation was ever produced and if so, where it was filed.
>The simple fact is it wouldn't have been needed until trial so it's very possible they never
>produced the documentation since they knew there would have been no trial. That doesn't
>mean they couldn't have produced the documentation had it been required. Apparently they
>didn't know that in 2023 you would be conducting a virtual trial and you would need that
>documentation to authenticate the evidence against your client.
Tell us who found the jacket.
Or admit that Gil is right.
Stop trying to use your unsupported speculation as evidence - it
isn't.
>> And that fact alone should give any reasonable person pause to ask the question:
>> The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, so why weren't these documents filled out ?
>
>Because it wouldn't be needed right away. Had there been a trial, it would have been months
>after the crime.
Doesn't change the facts.
>> And if these documents WERE filled out and destroyed after Oswald was dead and there'd be no trial, where's the record that the documents were destroyed ?
>
>Let us know when you find out the answers to your inane questions.
It's YOUR burden, not ours.
We merely point out the problems *YOU* have.
And can't solve.
>> It's not rocket science. There's plenty of opportunity to tamper and substitute evidence in this case.
>> And with that opportunity comes plenty of doubt of Oswald's guilt.
Logical fallacy deleted. (After I laughed at it!)
>> It's hard to believe that there are people out there that are that stupid they can't see that.
>
>But apparently I am.
Yep.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:14:22?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:35:47?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > These morons can't quite figure out the PURPOSE of chain of custody... which would, of course, be defeated if it didn't begin at the point of discovery.
>> Exactly.
>> 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.
>
>Bullshit. A claim you've made often and never supported by citing a recognized legal source.
>You've cited sources which state chain-of-custody is required, but none that say identification
>by the original source is necessary.
Gil has been citing for his claims, why can't you cite for yours?
>> > These morons can't quite figure out the PURPOSE of chain of custody... which would, of course, be defeated if it didn't begin at the point of discovery.
>> Exactly.
>> 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.
>
>Bullshit. A claim you've made often and never supported by citing a recognized legal source.
>You've cited sources which state chain-of-custody is required, but none that say identification
>by the original source is necessary.
>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.
as the one they received, then you're truly a moron.
>> 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.
>>
>Chain-of-custody is required to be established at trial.
> Had Oswad been on trial, there is no reason
>to believe the prosecutors could not have documented the chain-of-custody.
Who found the jacket?
>The cops and
>the prosecutors understood the rules of evidence. Do you really think they wouldn't have been
>able to meet the requirements in the most important crime they ever prosecuted?
And you're quite stupid indeed to think that there isn't evidence that
is attempted to be brought to trial that doesn't get excluded every
single day somewhere in America.
>> And that chain of custody does not start in an FBI lab, or with the second, third or fourth person who handled the evidence.
>> It begins at the crime scene or ( if it's found outside the crime scene ) the time of discovery.
>>
>> And the basic rules regarding chain of custody, in the legal arena, are the same whether you're taking samples for drug testing, gathering electronic evidence, or
>> physical evidence in a criminal case. Those rules require that the identities of everyone who handles the evidence MUST BE DOCUMENTED with the name, date and time the evidence
>> was in their possession and why they had it.
>
>And you think the DPD and prosecutors would not have been able to do that. Why?
Ask Westbrook.
>> There appears to be NO DOCUMENTED CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORDS for ANY of the evidence in this case.
>
>You don't know whether that documentation was ever produced and if so, where it was filed.
>The simple fact is it wouldn't have been needed until trial so it's very possible they never
>produced the documentation since they knew there would have been no trial. That doesn't
>mean they couldn't have produced the documentation had it been required. Apparently they
>didn't know that in 2023 you would be conducting a virtual trial and you would need that
>documentation to authenticate the evidence against your client.
Or admit that Gil is right.
Stop trying to use your unsupported speculation as evidence - it
isn't.
>> And that fact alone should give any reasonable person pause to ask the question:
>> The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, so why weren't these documents filled out ?
>
>Because it wouldn't be needed right away. Had there been a trial, it would have been months
>after the crime.
>> And if these documents WERE filled out and destroyed after Oswald was dead and there'd be no trial, where's the record that the documents were destroyed ?
>
>Let us know when you find out the answers to your inane questions.
We merely point out the problems *YOU* have.
And can't solve.
>> It's not rocket science. There's plenty of opportunity to tamper and substitute evidence in this case.
>> And with that opportunity comes plenty of doubt of Oswald's guilt.
>> It's hard to believe that there are people out there that are that stupid they can't see that.
>
Yep.
John Corbett
Oct 19, 2023, 1:54:13 PM10/19/23
to
Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makes
a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
ask him to back them up.
Gil Jesus
Oct 19, 2023, 2:33:02 PM10/19/23
to
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makes
> a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
> ask him to back them up.
You're right, John.
> Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makes
> a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
> ask him to back them up.
I'm sure the Dallas Police didn't have to document the chain-of-custody of the evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=574911510&q=chain+of+custody+forms&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibqoiv2oKCAxWpmokEHWafDssQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=1920&bih=931&dpr=1
I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.
NOT
But you, as a Warren Commission supporter, become a proxy for the Commission, and as such, the burden of proof is on YOU.
It's your evidence and you need to provide it.
I've asked you several questions that you and your asshole friends could not answer.
I've proven that the chain of custody was broken for several pieces of evidence.
I've listed how every major piece of evidence currently in the government's possession was never identified by the person who found it as the item they found.
Not one, John. EVERY SINGLE PIECE.
You haven't been able to refute one thing I've said about the chain of custody in this case.
And you still run from the question:
The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, these documents should have been filled out,
https://www.thoughtco.com/chain-of-custody-4589132
so where are they ?
This isn't about me. This is about YOU proving this statement you made:
> 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.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
We're still waiting for YOU to show us that documentation YOU say exists.
Are you going to show us the documentation, or are you going to keep running like the liar you are ?
Bud
Oct 19, 2023, 2:43:11 PM10/19/23
to
John Corbett
Oct 19, 2023, 4:03:07 PM10/19/23
to
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:33:02 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makes
> > a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
> > ask him to back them up.
> You're right, John.
> I'm sure the Dallas Police didn't have to document the chain-of-custody of the evidence.
> https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=574911510&q=chain+of+custody+forms&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibqoiv2oKCAxWpmokEHWafDssQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=1920&bih=931&dpr=1
Of course they didn't. Those are only needed for a trial that wasn't going to happen.
> > Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makes
> > a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
> > ask him to back them up.
> You're right, John.
> I'm sure the Dallas Police didn't have to document the chain-of-custody of the evidence.
> https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=574911510&q=chain+of+custody+forms&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibqoiv2oKCAxWpmokEHWafDssQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=1920&bih=931&dpr=1
>
> I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.
> NOT
Show us the requirement that a chain-of-custody form has to be filled out at the time the
> I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.
> NOT
evidence is collected.
>
> But you, as a Warren Commission supporter, become a proxy for the Commission, and as such, the burden of proof is on YOU.
Classic burden shift. The WC had no requirement for chain-of-custody forms and have no
> But you, as a Warren Commission supporter, become a proxy for the Commission, and as such, the burden of proof is on YOU.
burden of proof to produce something that wasn't required. You continue to cling to the silly
idea that the WC was conducting a criminal trial and the same rules of evidence applied to
them.
> It's your evidence and you need to provide it.
in the investigation. The WC documented the evidence in is 26 volumes of exhibits and
testimony.
>
> I've asked you several questions that you and your asshole friends could not answer.
> I've proven that the chain of custody was broken for several pieces of evidence.
You've claimed it, never supported it.
> I've listed how every major piece of evidence currently in the government's possession was never identified by the person who found it as the item they found.
> Not one, John. EVERY SINGLE PIECE.
>
> You haven't been able to refute one thing I've said about the chain of custody in this case.
that in Oswald's case never took place. You can lead a horse to water...
>
> And you still run from the question:
We've pointed out to you numerous times that your question is moot.
> And you still run from the question:
> The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, these documents should have been filled out,
Be sure to let us know when you find out.
>
> This isn't about me. This is about YOU proving this statement you made:
> > 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.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
I should have been more precise in my wording on was on later occasions. There was no chain
> This isn't about me. This is about YOU proving this statement you made:
> > 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.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
of custody issue because there wasn't going to be a trial. What I should have said and later did
is that the DPD and the prosecutor would have been able to produce that if needed. How do I
know that? Because they had prosecuted lots of cases and knew what the rules of evidence
were. It's rather silly to think that in most important prosecution they would ever have conducted,
they would not have been able to do something so routine. Whether they had already filled out
the forms before Oswald was murdered is something I do not know nor do I need to. Did they
file these forms after Oswald was murdered. Again, that's something I don't know nor do I need
to. The WC did not require chain-of-custody forms because they were not conducting a criminal
trial. They took testimony from the various investigators that established the validity of the
evidence. Nobody who is trying to determine the truth of the assassination needs to have the
chain-of-custody documented in order to consider the probative value of the evidence in question. It's only silly people like you who fantasize about being Oswald's defense counsel
who make these silly, irrelevant demands to validate the evidence.
>
> We're still waiting for YOU to show us that documentation YOU say exists.
ever filed away after Oswald's death. I do know that the documentation was never needed.
> Are you going to show us the documentation, or are you going to keep running like the liar you are ?
Hank Sienzant
Oct 20, 2023, 11:58:19 AM10/20/23
to
So he resorts to falsely attributing something to me and asking me to support it. And is stuck posting the same false claims repeatedly — like a broken record.
NoTrueFlags Here
Oct 20, 2023, 12:14:40 PM10/20/23
to
Hank Sienzant
Oct 20, 2023, 12:19:12 PM10/20/23
to
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:18:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -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’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
> It's time you start answering.
Asked and answered.
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -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’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
> It's time you start answering.
> >He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
> Both of you are running from false statements you've made.
> > A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a
> > discussion about the evidence.
> It takes two.
> > Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence
> You're CLEARLY a blatant liar... trying to claim that the Autopsy
> Report isn't evidence. Or the medical testimony...
>
> You should be ashamed.
> > and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims
> > he’s falsely attributing to me.
> And yet, I've CITED for your assertions.
>
> You can't get away from this Huckster - you're going to keep seeing
> this same post UNTIL YOU ANSWER IT.
> 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 want to make a point, make a reasoned argument and cite the evidence you think supports your argument. Go ahead, we’ll await your attempt.
>
> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>
> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
You want to make a point, make a reasoned argument and cite the evidence you think supports your argument. Go ahead, we’ll await your attempt.
>
> 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?
Hank Sienzant
Oct 20, 2023, 12:23:56 PM10/20/23
to
I’ll discuss the Kennedy assassination with anyone. But all Ben is doing for the last month or more is attributing claims to me I never made, and shifting the burden and asking me to support those false claims.
I’ve explained multiple times why that is wrong.
NoTrueFlags Here
Oct 20, 2023, 12:30:17 PM10/20/23
to
Hank Sienzant
Oct 20, 2023, 12:31:20 PM10/20/23
to
And Ben do likewise, couching his attacks in terms of false attributions to statements I never made.
Neither of you apparently want to discuss the evidence supporting a supposed conspiracy.
Hank Sienzant
Oct 20, 2023, 12:41:42 PM10/20/23
to
We were discussing what Ben is falsely attributing to me. You originally tried to justify Ben’s false attributions and constant reposting of the same false claims with the excuse:
“Apparently, Ben realizes that discussion with you is a waste of time.”
Since then you’ve retreated in ad hominem, not even trying to justify those false attributions, and failing to support your claims of weaseling and lying:
“More likely because you weasel and lie, and are not interested in discussing anything.”
“Everybody knows your shit stinks. They can smell it for themselves and don't need me to prove it.”
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 9:14:22 AM10/23/23
to
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>So he resorts to falsely attributing something to me
Cited for it the FIRST time you asked. A proven liar, aren't you?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>So he resorts to falsely attributing something to me
> and asking me to support it. And is stuck posting the same false
> claims repeatedly — like a broken record.
& paste them to your heart's content.
But if you think you're convincing anyone with your cowardice &
dishonesty... let me clue you in... you aren't.
Here it is again:
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 9:14:22 AM10/23/23
to
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>I’ve explained multiple times why that is wrong.
Here's your opportunity to to so again:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>I’ve explained multiple times why that is wrong.
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 9:14:22 AM10/23/23
to
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:18:54?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -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’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
>> It's time you start answering.
>
>Asked and answered.
Ad Argumentum Tony Marshium...
>>>He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
>> Both of you are running from false statements you've made.
>
>Asked and answered.
Ad Argumentum Tony Marshium...
>>> A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a
>>> discussion about the evidence.
>>
>> It takes two.
>
>And you bailed. You no longer discuss the evidence with me.
You refuse. I can't force you. So I'll just keep on the same topic
until you answer it.
> You are reducing to attributing false statements to me and asking
> me to support things I never said.
Publicly state that you lied, and then we can move on to what is
certain to be your next dishonest cowardice...
Until then, I'm holding you to the words *YOU* posted.
>>> Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence
>>
>> You're CLEARLY a blatant liar... trying to claim that the Autopsy
>> Report isn't evidence. Or the medical testimony...
>
>No, never said that.
You just did.
You just claimed that I "studiously avoids going near any discussion
of the evidence..."
I'm **SPECIFICALLY** addressing medical testimony and the Autopsy
Report.
That's a DIRECT contradiction.
It's up to you to show how it's not. Your claim, your burden.
>Two more false statements you invented and are putting in my mouth.
You JUST said it. Someone is clearly lying. Either I'm "studiously
avoiding" discussion of the evidence - which can only mean that topics
I'm discussing CANNOT be "evidence."
Or you lied.
Which is it?
Or if you wish to claim it's a fallacy - then **YOU** reconcile your
false statement with the factual truth.
>> You should be ashamed.
>
>
>>> and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims
>>> he’s falsely attributing to me.
>>
>> And yet, I've CITED for your assertions.
>
>No...
Yes. If everytime someone got called on an issue, and simply yelling
"it was a joke... it was a joke!" was a free pass, then there's no
objective truth.
You can either state publicly that you lied, or you can answer the
questions.
Or, of course, you can run away...
>> You can't get away from this Huckster - you're going to keep seeing
>> this same post UNTIL YOU ANSWER IT.
>
>Asked and answered. You didn’t like the answer. Nor want to accept it. Too bad.
Ad Argumentum Tony Marshium...
>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>
>No, never said that. Quote me saying that.
"I hereby designate Bud to speak for me."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-CUVS3Ytluw/m/zfiyumYXAgAJ
But you knew I'd merely repeat the same answer YOU ALREADY KNEW HAD
BEEN CITED.
This is what believers do all the time - you have to keep "proving"
the same thing over and over and over again.
>> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
>> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>
>Because you are putting words in my mouth
This is provably a lie... I've already cited for this.
> and shifting the burden of proof in addition.
If you say it, it's YOUR burden to answer for it.
>You want to make a point,
That's PRECISELY what I'm doing.
And you can even figure out the points I'm making if you were honest
enough to admit it. Ask me if you want me to list them. (You may have
missing one or two)
> make a reasoned argument
Why? You said it, you refuse to support it. This is YOUR problem, not
mine.
>and cite the evidence you think supports your argument.
Why are you asking me to carry YOUR burden?
> Go ahead, we’ll await your attempt.
Of *COURSE* you'll "wait." You're a proven coward.
>> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>
>No, never said that. Quote me saying that.
Cited above. All you have to do is admit that you lied when you
designated Chickenshit to speak for you, then I won't have reason to
hold you responsible.
But when you CLAIM responsibility - you own it.
>> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>
>Because you are putting words in my mouth,
Nope. Proof cited above.
> and shifting the burden of proof in addition.
The burden belongs to the person making the claim.
> You’re asking me to support a claim I never made.
That's a proven lie. It's not going to work in an open forum.
(Don't you just HATE the fact that you don't have any "moderators"
ready to censor me?)
>You want to make a point...
Been doing so all along.
>> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>
>Ben defines *running away* as not responding to each and every repost of his same fringe reset.
Let's see how *YOU* define it: "Hey Gil, you snipped about 90% of the
points I made. Are you conceding all those?"
So according to *YOU*, Huckster Sienzant - when you keep running away
and refusing to respond, YOU ARE CONCEDING THAT I'M RIGHT - AND I SAY
YOU'RE LYING.
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
>> and exited the back of his head.
>
>No, never said that. Quote me saying that.
Cited above. How many times do I need to cite you before you own your
own statements?
>> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
>
>From you.
Can you name that logical fallacy?
>> Are you proud of yourself?
>
>Asked and answered.
Ad Argumentum Tony Marshium...
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:18:54?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -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’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
>> It's time you start answering.
>
>Asked and answered.
>>>He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
>> Both of you are running from false statements you've made.
>
>Asked and answered.
>>> A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a
>>> discussion about the evidence.
>>
>> It takes two.
>
>And you bailed. You no longer discuss the evidence with me.
until you answer it.
> You are reducing to attributing false statements to me and asking
> me to support things I never said.
certain to be your next dishonest cowardice...
Until then, I'm holding you to the words *YOU* posted.
>>> Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence
>>
>> You're CLEARLY a blatant liar... trying to claim that the Autopsy
>> Report isn't evidence. Or the medical testimony...
>
>No, never said that.
You just claimed that I "studiously avoids going near any discussion
of the evidence..."
I'm **SPECIFICALLY** addressing medical testimony and the Autopsy
Report.
That's a DIRECT contradiction.
It's up to you to show how it's not. Your claim, your burden.
>Two more false statements you invented and are putting in my mouth.
avoiding" discussion of the evidence - which can only mean that topics
I'm discussing CANNOT be "evidence."
Or you lied.
Which is it?
Or if you wish to claim it's a fallacy - then **YOU** reconcile your
false statement with the factual truth.
>> You should be ashamed.
>
>
>>> and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims
>>> he’s falsely attributing to me.
>>
>> And yet, I've CITED for your assertions.
>
Yes. If everytime someone got called on an issue, and simply yelling
"it was a joke... it was a joke!" was a free pass, then there's no
objective truth.
You can either state publicly that you lied, or you can answer the
questions.
Or, of course, you can run away...
>> You can't get away from this Huckster - you're going to keep seeing
>> this same post UNTIL YOU ANSWER IT.
>
>Asked and answered. You didn’t like the answer. Nor want to accept it. Too bad.
>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>
>No, never said that. Quote me saying that.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-CUVS3Ytluw/m/zfiyumYXAgAJ
But you knew I'd merely repeat the same answer YOU ALREADY KNEW HAD
BEEN CITED.
This is what believers do all the time - you have to keep "proving"
the same thing over and over and over again.
>> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
>> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>
>Because you are putting words in my mouth
> and shifting the burden of proof in addition.
>You want to make a point,
And you can even figure out the points I'm making if you were honest
enough to admit it. Ask me if you want me to list them. (You may have
missing one or two)
> make a reasoned argument
Why? You said it, you refuse to support it. This is YOUR problem, not
mine.
>and cite the evidence you think supports your argument.
> Go ahead, we’ll await your attempt.
>> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>
>No, never said that. Quote me saying that.
designated Chickenshit to speak for you, then I won't have reason to
hold you responsible.
But when you CLAIM responsibility - you own it.
>> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>
>Because you are putting words in my mouth,
> and shifting the burden of proof in addition.
> You’re asking me to support a claim I never made.
(Don't you just HATE the fact that you don't have any "moderators"
ready to censor me?)
>You want to make a point...
Been doing so all along.
>> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>
>Ben defines *running away* as not responding to each and every repost of his same fringe reset.
points I made. Are you conceding all those?"
So according to *YOU*, Huckster Sienzant - when you keep running away
and refusing to respond, YOU ARE CONCEDING THAT I'M RIGHT - AND I SAY
YOU'RE LYING.
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
>> and exited the back of his head.
>
>No, never said that. Quote me saying that.
own statements?
>> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
>
>From you.
>> Are you proud of yourself?
>
>Asked and answered.
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 9:14:22 AM10/23/23
to
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:41:40 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>We were discussing what Ben is falsely attributing to me.
There you go again, lying. Shall I cite your claim again?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>We were discussing what Ben is falsely attributing to me.
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 9:14:23 AM10/23/23
to
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>And Ben do likewise, couching his attacks in terms of false attributions to statements I never made.
My "false attributions" were instantly cited the moment you finally
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>And Ben do likewise, couching his attacks in terms of false attributions to statements I never made.
asked for a cite - you ran for days & weeks, and finally decided to
challenge me to cite - and I did so INSTANTLY.
Own it, or admit you lied.
Hank Sienzant
Oct 27, 2023, 12:27:03 PM10/27/23
to
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >And Ben do likewise, couching his attacks in terms of false attributions to statements I never made.
> My "false attributions" were instantly cited the moment you finally
> asked for a cite - you ran for days & weeks, and finally decided to
> challenge me to cite - and I did so INSTANTLY.
>
Your link didn’t quote me say saying what you claim I said. It still doesn’t. And it never will. I never said what you claim I said. You keep pretending I do and responding with the same false claims to every point I make and all the testimony and evidence I cite. You don’t respond on the topic raised, but respond only with the same false claims. And you have done this for more than a month. There is a reason for this. You know you cannot win by citing out of context conspiracy claims and by ignoring the majority of the evidence and harping on some anomaly in the evidence.
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >And Ben do likewise, couching his attacks in terms of false attributions to statements I never made.
> My "false attributions" were instantly cited the moment you finally
> asked for a cite - you ran for days & weeks, and finally decided to
> challenge me to cite - and I did so INSTANTLY.
>
> Own it, or admit you lied.
> 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?
That is your bailiwick.
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 12:53:27 PM10/27/23
to
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Long list of denials deleted.
I cited your claim that Chickenshit speaks for you. You were either
telling the truth, or you were lying. There's no other possibility.
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Long list of denials deleted.
I cited your claim that Chickenshit speaks for you. You were either
telling the truth, or you were lying. There's no other possibility.
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?
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.
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Hank Sienzant
Oct 27, 2023, 12:57:53 PM10/27/23
to
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:57:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> > <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> > > backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> > > conspiracists.
> > Who are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
> >
> > You're simply a coward.
> > > Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. In
> > > it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
> > > by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
> > > FBI was behind the assassination.
> > Clearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
> > carry with them another form of authentication.
> > > Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracists
> > Nor anyone else intelligent enough to understand that handwritten
> > documents can self-authenticate.
> Really? A handwritten document can self-authenticate? How would it do that? Would the handwritten document fill out a form that Gil insists is necessary (but doesn’t establish that). Would this handwritten document swear to tell the truth, and then testify in a legal proceeding to its authenticity?
>
> Wouldn’t you actually need a handwriting expert to examine the original questioned document(s) and other known documents written by the subject person to compare the handwriting and make a determination as to whether the questioned document is legitimate or a forgery?
>
> Your argument that a handwritten document is somehow self-authenticating is nonsense.
>
> And isn’t it true that even where this was done for Oswald’s handwriting and the questioned documents verified as Oswald’s handwriting by experts, critics still question the authenticity of those documents?
Ben? Time to put up a reasoned argument, citing some examples of a hand-written document being “self-authenticating” as you claimed above.
>
> For example, the original money order that was used to purchased the rifle that was found on the sixth floor and matched ballistically to three shells found in the building, two large fragments found in the President’s limo, and a nearly-while bullet found in Parkland Hospital where the two shooting victims where taken.
>
> Don’t critics question the legitimacy of that money order?
Don’t they, even in the face of expert testimony to the contrary? Was the money order “self-authenticating”?
Awaiting your reasoned response, complete with evidence establishing your unproven assertion.
> > > - would say, "What about chain of possession? Is it clean? If it was
> > > broken then it's illegitimate and we can't use it since a court
> > > wouldn't allow it." No one.
> > True. But you haven't made any point when you agree that neither
> > critics nor believers would demand a chain of custody in such a case.
Yet a critic posting here (Gil Jesus) is asking for us to provide the chain of custody for 60-year-old evidence that the Commission established through testimony and affidavits 59 years ago. We disagree with his assertion, and ask him him to establish the unsupported claim he is making.
> > > Yes, we would all ask for *verification* about the diary. Is it
> > > Hoover's handwriting? Is it legitimate? But we wouldn't say, "But the
> > > chain of custody is broken, we don't know how it got to us. Therefore
> > > we throw it out."
> > Neither would critics.
> So, double standard. Gil is asking for something - chain of custody to establish the legitimacy of various pieces of evidence - that you say is unnecessary.
Isn’t it true that if you wouldn’t ask for a chain of custody for Hoover’s supposed diary, it’s a double standard to ask for a chain of custody at this late date - 60 years after the assassination - for the evidence gathered against Oswald?
> > >Anyone suggesting that would be laughed out of the room. Which is
> > > what we need to do with this chain of possession/custody issue
> > > involving Oswald. It's risible.
> > And anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
> > ROTFMAO!!!
> >
> >
> > YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
> > OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
> > do with chain of custody.
> >
> > You're a moron.
So you therefore must accept the Hitler diaries as legit, and don’t need further proof they were actually written by Hitler because they are “self-authenticating”?
Hilarious!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Diaries
“Rigorous forensic analysis, which had not been performed previously, quickly confirmed that the diaries were fakes.”
Please tell us why you claim Hoover’s diary would be “self-authenticating” but the same wasn’t true for Hitler’s diaries. Explain the difference in the diaries that make one “self-authenticating” and the other not.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Or change the subject to made-up claims you’re trying to put in my mouth. You’re a lot better at that.
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> > <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> > > backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> > > conspiracists.
> > Who are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
> >
> > You're simply a coward.
> > > Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. In
> > > it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
> > > by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
> > > FBI was behind the assassination.
> > Clearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
> > carry with them another form of authentication.
> > > Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracists
> > Nor anyone else intelligent enough to understand that handwritten
> > documents can self-authenticate.
> Really? A handwritten document can self-authenticate? How would it do that? Would the handwritten document fill out a form that Gil insists is necessary (but doesn’t establish that). Would this handwritten document swear to tell the truth, and then testify in a legal proceeding to its authenticity?
>
> Wouldn’t you actually need a handwriting expert to examine the original questioned document(s) and other known documents written by the subject person to compare the handwriting and make a determination as to whether the questioned document is legitimate or a forgery?
>
> Your argument that a handwritten document is somehow self-authenticating is nonsense.
>
> And isn’t it true that even where this was done for Oswald’s handwriting and the questioned documents verified as Oswald’s handwriting by experts, critics still question the authenticity of those documents?
Ben? Time to put up a reasoned argument, citing some examples of a hand-written document being “self-authenticating” as you claimed above.
>
> For example, the original money order that was used to purchased the rifle that was found on the sixth floor and matched ballistically to three shells found in the building, two large fragments found in the President’s limo, and a nearly-while bullet found in Parkland Hospital where the two shooting victims where taken.
>
> Don’t critics question the legitimacy of that money order?
Don’t they, even in the face of expert testimony to the contrary? Was the money order “self-authenticating”?
Awaiting your reasoned response, complete with evidence establishing your unproven assertion.
> > > - would say, "What about chain of possession? Is it clean? If it was
> > > broken then it's illegitimate and we can't use it since a court
> > > wouldn't allow it." No one.
> > True. But you haven't made any point when you agree that neither
> > critics nor believers would demand a chain of custody in such a case.
Yet a critic posting here (Gil Jesus) is asking for us to provide the chain of custody for 60-year-old evidence that the Commission established through testimony and affidavits 59 years ago. We disagree with his assertion, and ask him him to establish the unsupported claim he is making.
> > > Yes, we would all ask for *verification* about the diary. Is it
> > > Hoover's handwriting? Is it legitimate? But we wouldn't say, "But the
> > > chain of custody is broken, we don't know how it got to us. Therefore
> > > we throw it out."
> > Neither would critics.
> So, double standard. Gil is asking for something - chain of custody to establish the legitimacy of various pieces of evidence - that you say is unnecessary.
Isn’t it true that if you wouldn’t ask for a chain of custody for Hoover’s supposed diary, it’s a double standard to ask for a chain of custody at this late date - 60 years after the assassination - for the evidence gathered against Oswald?
> > >Anyone suggesting that would be laughed out of the room. Which is
> > > what we need to do with this chain of possession/custody issue
> > > involving Oswald. It's risible.
> > And anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
> > ROTFMAO!!!
> >
> >
> > YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
> > OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
> > do with chain of custody.
> >
> > You're a moron.
So you therefore must accept the Hitler diaries as legit, and don’t need further proof they were actually written by Hitler because they are “self-authenticating”?
Hilarious!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Diaries
“Rigorous forensic analysis, which had not been performed previously, quickly confirmed that the diaries were fakes.”
Please tell us why you claim Hoover’s diary would be “self-authenticating” but the same wasn’t true for Hitler’s diaries. Explain the difference in the diaries that make one “self-authenticating” and the other not.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Or change the subject to made-up claims you’re trying to put in my mouth. You’re a lot better at that.
Hank Sienzant
Oct 27, 2023, 1:32:18 PM10/27/23
to
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:53:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Long list of denials deleted.
Of course. Because you have no rebuttal.
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Long list of denials deleted.
>
> I cited your claim that Chickenshit speaks for you. You were either
> telling the truth, or you were lying. There's no other possibility.
Hilarious! Quote my claim *in context*.
You are doing exactly what critics in the JFK assassination have been doing for decades. Taking claims out of context and making an issue out of those out-of-context claims. You won’t quote in context because the context establishes your falsehood. As it does for the critics. Mark Lane for one was an expert at citing out-of-context claims and making it appear the evidence was pointing toward conspiracy instead of directly at Oswald.
And you know that. And so you’re stuck arguing about what you’re making up about what I supposedly said, instead of arguing for a conspiracy, because you always lose when you and I engage on that topic of the evidence in the assassination.
Below is again your attempt to make up things I never said, in another attempt to divert from your inability to discuss the assassination and rather, make it about me. Why are you avoiding talking about the supposed conspiracy evidence, and instead diverting the discussion to things I never said?
Hank Sienzant
Oct 27, 2023, 1:45:29 PM10/27/23
to
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:57:53 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:57:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> > > <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> > > > backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> > > > conspiracists.
> > > Who are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
> > >
> > > You're simply a coward.
> > > > Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. In
> > > > it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
> > > > by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
> > > > FBI was behind the assassination.
> > > Clearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
> > > carry with them another form of authentication.
> > > > Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracists
> > > Nor anyone else intelligent enough to understand that handwritten
> > > documents can self-authenticate.
> > Really? A handwritten document can self-authenticate? How would it do that? Would the handwritten document fill out a form that Gil insists is necessary (but doesn’t establish that). Would this handwritten document swear to tell the truth, and then testify in a legal proceeding to its authenticity?
> >
> > Wouldn’t you actually need a handwriting expert to examine the original questioned document(s) and other known documents written by the subject person to compare the handwriting and make a determination as to whether the questioned document is legitimate or a forgery?
> >
> > Your argument that a handwritten document is somehow self-authenticating is nonsense.
> >
> > And isn’t it true that even where this was done for Oswald’s handwriting and the questioned documents verified as Oswald’s handwriting by experts, critics still question the authenticity of those documents?
>
> Ben? Time to put up a reasoned argument, citing some examples of a hand-written document being “self-authenticating” as you claimed above.
Ben apparently decided it wasn’t time to put up a reasoned argument supporting his claim that hand-written documents are “self-authenticating”.
> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:57:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> > > <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
> > > > backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
> > > > conspiracists.
> > > Who are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
> > >
> > > You're simply a coward.
> > > > Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. In
> > > > it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
> > > > by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
> > > > FBI was behind the assassination.
> > > Clearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
> > > carry with them another form of authentication.
> > > > Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracists
> > > Nor anyone else intelligent enough to understand that handwritten
> > > documents can self-authenticate.
> > Really? A handwritten document can self-authenticate? How would it do that? Would the handwritten document fill out a form that Gil insists is necessary (but doesn’t establish that). Would this handwritten document swear to tell the truth, and then testify in a legal proceeding to its authenticity?
> >
> > Wouldn’t you actually need a handwriting expert to examine the original questioned document(s) and other known documents written by the subject person to compare the handwriting and make a determination as to whether the questioned document is legitimate or a forgery?
> >
> > Your argument that a handwritten document is somehow self-authenticating is nonsense.
> >
> > And isn’t it true that even where this was done for Oswald’s handwriting and the questioned documents verified as Oswald’s handwriting by experts, critics still question the authenticity of those documents?
>
> Ben? Time to put up a reasoned argument, citing some examples of a hand-written document being “self-authenticating” as you claimed above.
>
>
> >
> > For example, the original money order that was used to purchased the rifle that was found on the sixth floor and matched ballistically to three shells found in the building, two large fragments found in the President’s limo, and a nearly-while bullet found in Parkland Hospital where the two shooting victims where taken.
> >
> > Don’t critics question the legitimacy of that money order?
>
> Don’t they, even in the face of expert testimony to the contrary? Was the money order “self-authenticating”?
>
> Awaiting your reasoned response, complete with evidence establishing your unproven assertion.
No reasoned response forthcoming from Ben, supporting his claim that hand-written documents are
>
> >
> > For example, the original money order that was used to purchased the rifle that was found on the sixth floor and matched ballistically to three shells found in the building, two large fragments found in the President’s limo, and a nearly-while bullet found in Parkland Hospital where the two shooting victims where taken.
> >
> > Don’t critics question the legitimacy of that money order?
>
> Don’t they, even in the face of expert testimony to the contrary? Was the money order “self-authenticating”?
>
> Awaiting your reasoned response, complete with evidence establishing your unproven assertion.
“self-authenticating”.
>
>
> > > > - would say, "What about chain of possession? Is it clean? If it was
> > > > broken then it's illegitimate and we can't use it since a court
> > > > wouldn't allow it." No one.
> > > True. But you haven't made any point when you agree that neither
> > > critics nor believers would demand a chain of custody in such a case.
>
> Yet a critic posting here (Gil Jesus) is asking for us to provide the chain of custody for 60-year-old evidence that the Commission established through testimony and affidavits 59 years ago. We disagree with his assertion, and ask him him to establish the unsupported claim he is making.
>
>
> > > > Yes, we would all ask for *verification* about the diary. Is it
> > > > Hoover's handwriting? Is it legitimate? But we wouldn't say, "But the
> > > > chain of custody is broken, we don't know how it got to us. Therefore
> > > > we throw it out."
> > > Neither would critics.
> > So, double standard. Gil is asking for something - chain of custody to establish the legitimacy of various pieces of evidence - that you say is unnecessary.
>
> Isn’t it true that if you wouldn’t ask for a chain of custody for Hoover’s supposed diary, it’s a double standard to ask for a chain of custody at this late date - 60 years after the assassination - for the evidence gathered against Oswald?
>
>
> > > >Anyone suggesting that would be laughed out of the room. Which is
> > > > what we need to do with this chain of possession/custody issue
> > > > involving Oswald. It's risible.
> > > And anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
> > > ROTFMAO!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
> > > OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
> > > do with chain of custody.
> > >
> > > You're a moron.
>
> So you therefore must accept the Hitler diaries as legit, and don’t need further proof they were actually written by Hitler because they are “self-authenticating”?
>
> Hilarious!
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Diaries
> “Rigorous forensic analysis, which had not been performed previously, quickly confirmed that the diaries were fakes.”
>
> Please tell us why you claim Hoover’s diary would be “self-authenticating” but the same wasn’t true for Hitler’s diaries. Explain the difference in the diaries that make one “self-authenticating” and the other not.
>
> Go ahead, we’ll wait.
>
> Or change the subject to made-up claims you’re trying to put in my mouth. You’re a lot better at that.
He’d rather make up things I never said.
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 1:49:25 PM10/27/23
to
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:32:17 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:53:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Long list of denials deleted.
>
>Of course. Because you have no rebuttal.
No need to "rebute" a denial.
>> I cited your claim that Chickenshit speaks for you. You were either
>> telling the truth, or you were lying. There's no other possibility.
>
truth.
>> 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?
Still a coward. It's amusing to note that critics have reasonable and
in most cases, supported answers for anything related to this case...
Yet believers run from virtually everything in this case.
You can't admit that the "A.B.C.D." doesn't describe the position of
the wound - because a fellow believer made that claim... and you can't
point out that he's wrong.
So *YOU* aren't honest. It's really just that simple.
Gil has asked a multitude of questions that you've seen and are
currently running from as well.
YOU are a proven COWARD!
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:53:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Long list of denials deleted.
>
>Of course. Because you have no rebuttal.
>> I cited your claim that Chickenshit speaks for you. You were either
>> telling the truth, or you were lying. There's no other possibility.
>
>Hilarious! Quote my claim *in context*.
I cited it. All you have to do is deny that you were telling the
truth.
>> 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?
in most cases, supported answers for anything related to this case...
Yet believers run from virtually everything in this case.
You can't admit that the "A.B.C.D." doesn't describe the position of
the wound - because a fellow believer made that claim... and you can't
point out that he's wrong.
So *YOU* aren't honest. It's really just that simple.
Gil has asked a multitude of questions that you've seen and are
currently running from as well.
YOU are a proven COWARD!
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 1:50:14 PM10/27/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 1:52:16 PM10/27/23
to
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ben apparently decided it wasn’t time to put up a reasoned argument
> supporting his claim that hand-written documents are “self-authenticating”.
You can cry all you want, Huckster - but you're still running from
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ben apparently decided it wasn’t time to put up a reasoned argument
> supporting his claim that hand-written documents are “self-authenticating”.
this:
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?
Hank Sienzant
Oct 27, 2023, 2:44:18 PM10/27/23
to
And by raising it again, aren’t you conceding my point — that you’d rather talk about me than talk about the Kennedy assassination?
When was the last time you actually posted a reasoned argument for a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination? Citing evidence and tying the various points together to show how there must have been a conspiracy to assassinate the President? It’s been *years*, hasn’t it?
Bud
Oct 27, 2023, 3:01:37 PM10/27/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 3:07:35 PM10/27/23
to
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:01:35 -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.
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
Oct 27, 2023, 3:09:22 PM10/27/23
to
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:44:17 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:52:16?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ben apparently decided it wasn’t time to put up a reasoned argument
>> > supporting his claim that hand-written documents are “self-authenticating”.
>> You can cry all you want, Huckster - but you're still running from
>> this:
>> 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?
>> Why do you think you deserve answers when *YOU* refuse to offer any?
>
>I answered this post in detail.
You're lying again, Huckster.
Take, for example, the very first question - can anyone tell FROM WHAT
YOU ANSWERED what the "A.B.C.D." paragraphs describe?
No. They can't.
Thus, you've not answered.
You're a coward.
Provably.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:52:16?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ben apparently decided it wasn’t time to put up a reasoned argument
>> > supporting his claim that hand-written documents are “self-authenticating”.
>> You can cry all you want, Huckster - but you're still running from
>> this:
>> 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?
>> Why do you think you deserve answers when *YOU* refuse to offer any?
>
>I answered this post in detail.
Take, for example, the very first question - can anyone tell FROM WHAT
YOU ANSWERED what the "A.B.C.D." paragraphs describe?
No. They can't.
Thus, you've not answered.
You're a coward.
Provably.
Hank Sienzant
Oct 29, 2023, 9:27:00 PM10/29/23
to
Hank Sienzant
Oct 29, 2023, 9:30:31 PM10/29/23
to
They aren’t. Neither are his attempts to get me to answer questions about statements I never made.
Ben Holmes
Oct 30, 2023, 9:19:46 AM10/30/23
to
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:26:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Last time he went toe-to-toe with me ...
Can't be done if you refuse to answer:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Last time he went toe-to-toe with me ...
Can't be done if you refuse to answer:
Ben Holmes
Oct 30, 2023, 9:19:47 AM10/30/23
to
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:30:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ben is pretending loaded questions ...
Nothing "loaded" about these questions... I'm asking you to support
your claims...
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ben is pretending loaded questions ...
Nothing "loaded" about these questions... I'm asking you to support
your claims...
Hank Sienzant
Oct 30, 2023, 8:57:07 PM10/30/23
to
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:47 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:30:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Ben is pretending loaded questions ...
You left out the rest of my remarks: Ben is pretending loaded questions like “Do you still beat your wife?” are legitimate. They aren’t. Neither are his attempts to get me to answer questions about statements I never made.
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:30:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Ben is pretending loaded questions ...
Run, Ben, Run!
>
> Nothing "loaded" about these questions...
> I'm asking you to support
> your claims...
Don’t put words in my mouth. Quote me saying what you are claiming I said.
You won’t, you can’t.
Ben Holmes
Oct 31, 2023, 9:36:13 AM10/31/23
to
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 17:57:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:47?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:30:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ben is pretending loaded questions ...
as a joke when called on it.
Here it is again folks - the proof that Huckster is a liar and a
coward:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:47?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:30:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ben is pretending loaded questions ...
>> Nothing "loaded" about these questions...
>>
>>
>> I'm asking you to support
>> your claims...
>
>You are asking me to support claims I never made.
Lie again, stupid. I CITED your claim. You've tried to play it off
>> your claims...
>
>You are asking me to support claims I never made.
as a joke when called on it.
Here it is again folks - the proof that Huckster is a liar and a
coward:
Hank Sienzant
Nov 5, 2023, 9:44:23 PM11/5/23
to
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:33:02 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makes
> > a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
> > ask him to back them up.
> You're right, John.
> I'm sure the Dallas Police didn't have to document the chain-of-custody of the evidence.
> https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=574911510&q=chain+of+custody+forms&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibqoiv2oKCAxWpmokEHWafDssQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=1920&bih=931&dpr=1
Testimony would suffice, as it did in the Manson trial.
But even that is unnecessary. If the chain of custody is missing, or incomplete, the evidence is still admissible. It would be the jury’s responsibility to decide how much weight to give it. This has been cited to you numerous times. You have ignored it on each occasion, because it conflicts with what you want to believe.
Here it is again:
See this quote on the second page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
>
> I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.
> NOT
You were right the first time.
>
> But you, as a Warren Commission supporter, become a proxy for the Commission, and as such, the burden of proof is on YOU.
You need to establish your assertion that any such forms were required in 1963.
> It's your evidence and you need to provide it.
You are asserting forms were needed that you haven’t established were required. Then asking us to link to those non-existent forms.
>
> I've asked you several questions that you and your asshole friends could not answer.
> I've proven that the chain of custody was broken for several pieces of evidence.
Assuming it’s true (it’s not) for the sake of argument, the evidence would still be admissible:
See this quote on the second page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
> I've listed how every major piece of evidence currently in the government's possession was never identified by the person who found it as the item they found.
And this is meaningful why?
> Not one, John. EVERY SINGLE PIECE.
>
> You haven't been able to refute one thing I've said about the chain of custody in this case.
I’ve established you don’t know what you’re talking about concerning admissibility of evidence.
>
> And you still run from the question:
> The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, these documents should have been filled out,
What 1963 DPD documents should have been filled out?
Provide a sample form from another 1963 DPD case.
> https://www.thoughtco.com/chain-of-custody-4589132
> so where are they ?
They don’t exist, because you are asking for something that you have never established were required or even existed.
>
> This isn't about me. This is about YOU proving this statement you made:
> > 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.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
> We're still waiting for YOU to show us that documentation YOU say exists.
> Are you going to show us the documentation, or are you going to keep running like the liar you are ?
Testimony is sufficient to establish chain of custody.
> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makes
> > a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
> > ask him to back them up.
> You're right, John.
> I'm sure the Dallas Police didn't have to document the chain-of-custody of the evidence.
> https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=574911510&q=chain+of+custody+forms&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibqoiv2oKCAxWpmokEHWafDssQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=1920&bih=931&dpr=1
Testimony would suffice, as it did in the Manson trial.
But even that is unnecessary. If the chain of custody is missing, or incomplete, the evidence is still admissible. It would be the jury’s responsibility to decide how much weight to give it. This has been cited to you numerous times. You have ignored it on each occasion, because it conflicts with what you want to believe.
Here it is again:
See this quote on the second page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
>
> I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.
> NOT
You were right the first time.
>
> But you, as a Warren Commission supporter, become a proxy for the Commission, and as such, the burden of proof is on YOU.
You need to establish your assertion that any such forms were required in 1963.
> It's your evidence and you need to provide it.
You are asserting forms were needed that you haven’t established were required. Then asking us to link to those non-existent forms.
>
> I've asked you several questions that you and your asshole friends could not answer.
> I've proven that the chain of custody was broken for several pieces of evidence.
Assuming it’s true (it’s not) for the sake of argument, the evidence would still be admissible:
See this quote on the second page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
> I've listed how every major piece of evidence currently in the government's possession was never identified by the person who found it as the item they found.
And this is meaningful why?
> Not one, John. EVERY SINGLE PIECE.
>
> You haven't been able to refute one thing I've said about the chain of custody in this case.
I’ve established you don’t know what you’re talking about concerning admissibility of evidence.
>
> And you still run from the question:
> The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, these documents should have been filled out,
What 1963 DPD documents should have been filled out?
Provide a sample form from another 1963 DPD case.
> https://www.thoughtco.com/chain-of-custody-4589132
> so where are they ?
They don’t exist, because you are asking for something that you have never established were required or even existed.
>
> This isn't about me. This is about YOU proving this statement you made:
> > 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.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
> We're still waiting for YOU to show us that documentation YOU say exists.
> Are you going to show us the documentation, or are you going to keep running like the liar you are ?
Testimony is sufficient to establish chain of custody.
NoTrueFlags Here
Nov 5, 2023, 10:18:40 PM11/5/23
to
Ben Holmes
Nov 6, 2023, 10:04:30 AM11/6/23
to
On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 18:44:21 -0800 (PST), 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?
You can run, Huckster - but you can't hide in an open forum - and you
<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?
can't stop me proving your cowardice on a daily basis.
Bud
Nov 6, 2023, 1:41:52 PM11/6/23
to
Ben Holmes
Nov 6, 2023, 2:06:46 PM11/6/23
to
BT George
Nov 6, 2023, 2:52:43 PM11/6/23
to
0 new messages