Evidentiary Question for the Nutters.

[Gil Jesus]

Oswald was arraigned for the assassination of President Kennedy at 1:35 am on Saturday morning, November 23, 1963.

What evidence did the Dallas Police have against Oswald at that time that caused them to bring charges against him for the murder of the President ?

[Ben Holmes]

I've asked this same question numerous times... the kooks keep saying
that the DPD had this "wrapped up" that weekend, yet have refused,
TIME AND TIME AGAIN, from listing the evidence that the DPD had that
weekend.

I predict you'll get a few logical fallacies, a few lies, but **NO**
serious attempts at an answer.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:16:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> I've asked this same question numerous times... the kooks keep saying
> that the DPD had this "wrapped up" that weekend, yet have refused,
> TIME AND TIME AGAIN, from listing the evidence that the DPD had that
> weekend.
>
> I predict you'll get a few logical fallacies, a few lies, but **NO**
> serious attempts at an answer.

Under normal circumstances, you would have evidence BEFORE you file charges on a
suspect. I'm wondering what that evidence was that caused them to believe that
Oswald was responsible for the assassination.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:06:35 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oswald was arraigned for the assassination of President Kennedy at 1:35 am on Saturday morning, November 23, 1963.
>
> What evidence did the Dallas Police have against Oswald at that time that caused them to bring charges against him for the murder of the President ?

Cure your own ignorance.

[Bud]

Look through the witness statements, police reports, physical evidence and police interrogations from that weekend and get back to us.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:53:39 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Cure your own ignorance.

<snicker>

Translation: "I'm a f**king dumbass."

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 5 May 2022 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You say things, you refuse to cite things...

But you *DO* support what I stated.

[Bud]

You are translating what I said into dumbass.

[Bud]

I am only pointing him in the direction he needs to go if he wants to cure his ignorance.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:58:16 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Look through the witness statements, police reports, physical evidence and police interrogations from that weekend and get back to us.

What witnesses saw him firing at Kennedy ?
What physical evidence did they have ? All they had was a paraffin test that proved ( as far as they were concerned ) that he hadn't fired a rifle.
All of the witnesses who viewed the lineups were Tippit witnesses. There were no assassination witnesse who identified him while he was alive.
They didn't link the rifle to him until 2 1/2 to 3 hours AFTER his arraignment.
And what police interrogation sessions were recorded ?

So I ask again, what evdience did they have against Oswald for killing the President before he was arraigned ?

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:05:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:58:16 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>
> > Look through the witness statements, police reports, physical evidence and police interrogations from that weekend and get back to us.
> What witnesses saw him firing at Kennedy ?

Are you saying if you shoot and kill someone and nobody sees you do it you can`t be charged with murder?

> What physical evidence did they have ? All they had was a paraffin test that proved ( as far as they were concerned ) that he hadn't fired a rifle.

That is all you know of? You seem totally ignorant of much of the case evidence.

> All of the witnesses who viewed the lineups were Tippit witnesses.

And he was charged with that murder also. And Oswald being at the location of two murders within an hour is not worthy of a consideration of guilt?

>There were no assassination witnesse who identified him while he was alive.

No witnesses to OJ killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, yet he was still charged with murder.

> They didn't link the rifle to him until 2 1/2 to 3 hours AFTER his arraignment.

Back this up.

> And what police interrogation sessions were recorded ?

Now you give away the crooked game that Ben wanted to set up, I`m supposed to fetch evidence and then you set yourself up as judge as to the weight or validity of that evidence. But the criteria is not whether idiots accept the evidence, only whether the DPD did.

> So I ask again, what evdience did they have against Oswald for killing the President before he was arraigned ?

Cure your own ignorance. I told you the places to look.

[Ben Holmes]

He won't answer.

Cowards have NEVER answered this question...

[Bud]

Crooked games and shifting the burden is all you folks have.

Did the DPD accept that Oswald`s prints were found on the rifle?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 5 May 2022 13:26:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:05:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:58:16 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>
>> > Look through the witness statements, police reports, physical evidence and police interrogations from that weekend and get back to us.
>> What witnesses saw him firing at Kennedy ?
>

> Are you saying ...

Chickenshit couldn't answer...

>> What physical evidence did they have ? All they had was a paraffin test that proved ( as far as they were concerned ) that he hadn't fired a rifle.
>

> That ...

Is a fact you were unable to refute.

>> All of the witnesses who viewed the lineups were Tippit witnesses.

LFD.

>>There were no assassination witnesse who identified him while he was alive.

LFD.

>> They didn't link the rifle to him until 2 1/2 to 3 hours AFTER his arraignment.
>
> Back this up.

Shifting the burden.

>> And what police interrogation sessions were recorded ?
>

> Now ...

Then.

>> So I ask again, what evdience did they have against Oswald for killing the President before he was arraigned ?
>
> Cure your own ignorance. I told you the places to look.

Once again, Chickenshit proves what I stated. Believers CANNOT defend
their wacky claims.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 5 May 2022 12:01:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:58:32 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:53:39 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>
>> > Cure your own ignorance.
>>
>> <snicker>
>>
>> Translation: "I'm a f**king dumbass."
>

> You ...

No Chickenshit... we're talking about *YOU*.

[Bud]

Always ends the same, you running from the points I make.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:26:01 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> > They didn't link the rifle to him until 2 1/2 to 3 hours AFTER his arraignment.
> Back this up.

MR. BELIN: When did you actually find the microfilm of which Waldman Deposition No. 7 is a print ?

MR SCIBOR: About 4 o'clock in the morning, as far as I can remember.

( 7 H 370 )

Since he was arraigned at 1:35 am, they didn't even find the microfilm of the sales transaction until 2 1/2 hours AFTER his arraignment.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:52:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> He won't answer.
>
> Cowards have NEVER answered this question...

A lot of comments but as usual, Chickenshit can't provide any evidence.

They didn't have any evidence against Oswald for killing the President before he was charged.

And of course, these nutters don't find anything wrong with charging someone with a crime without any evidence.

I ask for evidence and his answer is "go find it". LOL

Not only is he ignorant of the facts of this case, he's ignorant of anything to do with police procedures or the workings of the criminal justice system.

He refuses to look at opposing evidence and is too lazy to do any research to defend his position.

He'd rather nit-pik and chickenshit word meanings.

What a loser.

[Bud]

When did they find Oswald`s prints on the rifle? His prints on the rifle don`t link him to the rifle? He doesn`t have to be the owner of the rifle to use it.

[Bud]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:03:24 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:52:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > He won't answer.
> >
> > Cowards have NEVER answered this question...
> A lot of comments but as usual, Chickenshit can't provide any evidence.

The evidence is all available online. I`m examining your ideas.

> They didn't have any evidence against Oswald for killing the President before he was charged.

What a stupid thing to say. His prints weren`t all over the location the shots were fired from? His prints weren`t on the rifle found where shots were known to have been fired from?

> And of course, these nutters don't find anything wrong with charging someone with a crime without any evidence.

You need to stop blaming other people for your ignorance.

> I ask for evidence and his answer is "go find it". LOL

I told you where to look.

> Not only is he ignorant of the facts of this case, he's ignorant of anything to do with police procedures or the workings of the criminal justice system.

Ironic, considering what you are saying is at odds with the way the real criminal investigators conducted this case.

> He refuses to look at opposing evidence and is too lazy to do any research to defend his position.

I always look at what you guys produce, on those rare occasions you produce anything at all. It is usually contrived, weak and desperate.

My position has been on the table for decades now. Where`s yours?

> He'd rather nit-pik and chickenshit word meanings.

So you and your fellow hobbyists are going to stop nit-picking words like "missile" in the evidence?

> What a loser.

Go buy a truck.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 03:14:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

They didn't. The FBI was quite clear on this issue.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:03:24 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:52:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>> > He won't answer.
>> >
>> > Cowards have NEVER answered this question...
>> A lot of comments but as usual, Chickenshit can't provide any evidence.
>
> The evidence is all available online. I`m examining your ideas.

How can you be "examining" Gil, WHEN IT WAS HIS QUESTION TO YOU?

>> They didn't have any evidence against Oswald for killing the President before he was charged.
>
> What a stupid thing to say. His prints weren`t all over the
> location the shots were fired from?

As were a dozen others... Are you stupid?

> His prints weren`t on the rifle found where shots were known to have
> been fired from?

Nope.

>> And of course, these nutters don't find anything wrong with charging someone with a crime without any evidence.
>
> You need to stop blaming other people for your ignorance.

You need to stop proving how stupid you are.

>> I ask for evidence and his answer is "go find it". LOL
>
> I told you where to look.

No, you didn't.

>> Not only is he ignorant of the facts of this case, he's ignorant of anything to do with police procedures or the workings of the criminal justice system.
>
> Ironic, considering what you are saying is at odds with the way the real criminal investigators conducted this case.

You say things, you cannot cite things...

>> He refuses to look at opposing evidence and is too lazy to do any research to defend his position.
>

> I always look at what you guys produce...

And run from it.

> My position has been on the table for decades now.

Yet you can't defend it.

> Where`s yours?

Same place yours is... a reference to a book.

>> He'd rather nit-pik and chickenshit word meanings.
>

> So ...

So what?

>> What a loser.
>
> Go buy a truck.

Chrissy's gunna be upset at this reference...

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:14:52 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> When did they find Oswald`s prints on the rifle? His prints on the rifle don`t link him to the rifle?

They didn't find any prints before he was arraigned.

MR. DAY....from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his ( Oswald's ) prints.

Mr. MCCLOY. What about the palm print ?

Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself that it was his palm.

( 4 H 262 )

Then at 10 pm, they shipped the rifle to the FBI and the FBI could not identify ANY prints on the rifle.

Mr. LATONA I was not successful in developing any prints on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms experts dismantle the weapon and I processed the
complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip ?

Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, that included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were the cartridge cases furnished to you at that time ?

Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no prints.

Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139 ?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

( 4 H 23 )

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0016a.htm

At the time of his arraignment, the Dallas Police had NO evidence against Oswald for killing the President.

[Ben Holmes]

So not only can't any believers offer citations to any evidence
against Oswald when he was arraigned, but Gil has pointed out that
they flat DIDN'T HAVE what believers have lied and claimed that they
did.

When does the truth need lies to support it?

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:53:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> So not only can't any believers offer citations to any evidence
> against Oswald when he was arraigned, but Gil has pointed out that
> they flat DIDN'T HAVE what believers have lied and claimed that they
> did.
>
> When does the truth need lies to support it?

And so you have to ask yourself, how can an honest legal system allow the charging and arraignment
of a suspect accused of an crime without evidence that he in fact did commit that crime ?

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:21:03 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:53:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Oswald was intentionally denied a lawyer at his arraignment as a plan to scuttle the case against him...At least that is what they told Oswald to keep him cooperating...

[Ben Holmes]

I suspect that the DPD would have arrested a local church pastor, if
need be, to have demonstrated that they're on the ball, and have
solved the murder of a President in their city.

[Bud]

I suspect you are an idiot.

[Bud]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:41:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:03:24 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:52:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>
> >> > He won't answer.
> >> >
> >> > Cowards have NEVER answered this question...
> >> A lot of comments but as usual, Chickenshit can't provide any evidence.
> >
> > The evidence is all available online. I`m examining your ideas.
> How can you be "examining" Gil, WHEN IT WAS HIS QUESTION TO YOU?

These aren`t Gil`s ideas?

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/mXax8id1u3U/m/AMpXh0DNAAAJ

> >> They didn't have any evidence against Oswald for killing the President before he was charged.
> >
> > What a stupid thing to say. His prints weren`t all over the
> > location the shots were fired from?
> As were a dozen others...

Support that.

>Are you stupid?
> > His prints weren`t on the rifle found where shots were known to have
> > been fired from?
> Nope.

We disagree.

> >> And of course, these nutters don't find anything wrong with charging someone with a crime without any evidence.
> >
> > You need to stop blaming other people for your ignorance.
> You need to stop proving how stupid you are.
> >> I ask for evidence and his answer is "go find it". LOL
> >
> > I told you where to look.
> No, you didn't.

We disagree.

> >> Not only is he ignorant of the facts of this case, he's ignorant of anything to do with police procedures or the workings of the criminal justice system.
> >
> > Ironic, considering what you are saying is at odds with the way the real criminal investigators conducted this case.
> You say things, you cannot cite things...

They charged him with both murders.

> >> He refuses to look at opposing evidence and is too lazy to do any research to defend his position.
> >
> > I always look at what you guys produce...
>
> And run from it.

I apply reasoning to it and find it wanting.

> > My position has been on the table for decades now.
> Yet you can't defend it.

Against what? Why does it need defending?

> > Where`s yours?
>
> Same place yours is... a reference to a book.

My has been on the table for decades.

> >> He'd rather nit-pik and chickenshit word meanings.
> >
> > So ...
>
> So what?

So what I said.

[Bud]

What lie?

[David Healy]

It's simple english Dudster, the lying moniker appears to suit you well... the question has been brought up on this forum multiple times and never on AAJ. For you poor neglected loon neuters here's the question once again:

[David Von Pein]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:46:58 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> At the time of his arraignment, the Dallas Police had NO evidence against Oswald for killing the President.

This, of course, is more nonsense coming from dedicated conspiracy theorist Gil J. Jesus.

By 1:35 AM CST on 11/23/63, the DPD knew they had Oswald dead to rights in the Tippit murder. There was no doubt about his guilt in that murder. And they knew the same man who killed Tippit (namely Oswald) also was present inside the Book Depository Building at the time of Kennedy's murder.

And the DPD also knew that this same man named Oswald left the TSBD within minutes of the President getting shot.

And the DPD also had the *very incriminating lies* told by Oswald to Captain Fritz throughout the day on 11/22, the biggest of which was when Oswald denied ever taking any large-ish paper package into the building....plus Oswald denying that he had said anything to Buell Frazier about bringing any "curtain rods" to work that morning. Both of those lies are incredibly important circumstantial evidence that would have immediately indicated to the Dallas Police that Lee Oswald was guilty of SOMETHING on November 22nd, otherwise he most certainly wouldn't have felt the need to tell lies about the large package and the "curtain rods".

But evidently a lot of CTers think the DPD should have believed Oswald was telling the *truth* regarding the large-ish package AND the "curtain rods", and therefore the police should have treated Buell Wesley Frazier as the liar in this case instead of Mr. Oswald---even though the DPD *knew*, based on the eyewitness identifications in the Tippit murder, that Oswald had killed at least ONE person that day.

But the DPD apparently wasn't comprised of goofy conspiracy theorists in November of 1963. And we can all be thankful for that anyway.

Related Link:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/10/two-important-points.html

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

What DVP presents here is reason for suspicion, but not enough to make the charge for shooting the president. And there was no problem holding him, since they did have sufficient evidence for charging him with the murder of Tiipit. The DPD had plenty of time to gather sufficient evidence and did not need to charge him so early.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 2:38:48 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 12:35:47 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> >
> > And the DPD also had the *very incriminating lies* told by Oswald to Captain Fritz throughout the day on 11/22, the biggest of which was when Oswald denied ever taking any large-ish paper package into the building....plus Oswald denying that he had said anything to Buell Frazier about bringing any "curtain rods" to work that morning. Both of those lies are incredibly important circumstantial evidence that would have immediately indicated to the Dallas Police that Lee Oswald was guilty of SOMETHING on November 22nd, otherwise he most certainly wouldn't have felt the need to tell lies about the large package and the "curtain rods".

> What DVP presents here is reason for suspicion, but not enough to make the charge for shooting the president. And there was no problem holding him, since they did have sufficient evidence for charging him with the murder of Tiipit. The DPD had plenty of time to gather sufficient evidence and did not need to charge him so early.

The paper gunsack is examined here:

https://gil-jesus.com/?page_id=317

The fact is that they had NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that Oswald killed Kennedy at the time of his arraignment.
No fingerprints on the rifle.
No proof of ownership of the rifle, this includes the "backyard photographs" which weren't offically found in the Paine garage until the second search Saturday afternoon. They didn't even have those.
No witnesses who saw him shoot.
Nothing. They had nothing.
You don't arraign a suspect without evidence.
That's why so many of Henry Wade's convictions were overturned by DNA evidence.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

And they didn't arraign him on suspicion, they arraigned him on "murder with malice".

Mr. JOHNSTON. This was the arraignment of Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder with malice of John F. Kennedy, cause No. F-154, the State of Texas versus Lee Harvey Oswald. The complaint was filed at 11:25 pm, was accepted by me at 11:26 pm. ( 15 H 507 )

And lone nutter Von Pein, as many Warren Commission apologists do, has posted an opinion, not evidence.

I'm still waiting to see the actual evidence they had before the arraignment.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 2:38:48 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

> What DVP presents here is reason for suspicion, but not enough to make the charge for shooting the president. And there was no problem holding him, since they did have sufficient evidence for charging him with the murder of Tiipit. The DPD had plenty of time to gather sufficient evidence and did not need to charge him so early.

Before they had any evidence. This is the way they did things.

That's why so many of Henry Wade's convictions were later reversed on DNA evidence.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

This is the reason why the cops gave Ruby carte blanche access to the police station after Oswald's arrest. They knew they didn't have evidence against Oswald for the assassination, so they let Ruby into the "Midnight Press Conference" so he could kill Oswald. Ruby admitted that he was there to kill Oswald but he was afraid that he'd hit one of the cops by mistake. On Sunday, the police simply waited for Ruby to get into position and then gave the "all clear" to bring Oswald down. Ruby had to get him before they surrendered custody of Oswald to the Sheriff's department because the Sheriff's department was not in on the framing of Oswald, the police department would have no longer control of the prisoner and there's no telling what he'd tell the sheriff's deputies about his 48 hours in the custody of the police department.
The murder of Oswald by Ruby was not to silence him, but to prevent him from going to trial and having all this fake evidence exposed.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

That's a nice comprehensive page on the gun sack, which I'm sure was not carried into the TSBD by Oswald on the 22nd. I think you should also incorporate the photo of the bag held up to news photographers in front of the TSBD into your page. Is that the same bag photographed in evidence? If nobody else had seen it, how is it that the photographers got a picture of it? Not to mention the detective holding it. He obviously saw it, too. Isn't this bag too long to be the official evidence bag?

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

> That's a nice comprehensive page on the gun sack, which I'm sure was not carried into the TSBD by Oswald on the 22nd. I think you should also incorporate the photo of the bag held up to news photographers in front of the TSBD into your page. Is that the same bag photographed in evidence? If nobody else had seen it, how is it that the photographers got a picture of it? Not to mention the detective holding it. He obviously saw it, too. Isn't this bag too long to be the official evidence bag?

Thanks, and yes, how does that bag stand up like that ?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I disagree with that. I think Oswald was killed to silence him. I see a grander conspiracy than you do, apparently. I think the Oswald shooting went exactly as planned.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 8:29:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> The paper gunsack is examined here:
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/?page_id=317
>
> The fact is that they had NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that Oswald killed Kennedy at the time of his arraignment.
> No fingerprints on the rifle.
> No proof of ownership of the rifle, this includes the "backyard photographs" which weren't offically found in the Paine garage until the second search Saturday afternoon. They didn't even have those.
> No witnesses who saw him shoot.
> Nothing. They had nothing.
> You don't arraign a suspect without evidence.
> That's why so many of Henry Wade's convictions were overturned by DNA evidence.

John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blames a culture of "win at all costs."

"When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys."

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

And that's exactly what they did.

[Bud]

https://www.jfk.org/wp-content/uploads/1989.100.0036.0010_1.jpg

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

That's pretty good... for you. I think it was potentially dangerous for "them" to let him say anything to the press, but he might not be motivated to say anything until he faces the death sentence. With time to think about it, he probably would have talked.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:16:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:>
> I predict you'll get a few logical fallacies, a few lies, but **NO**
> serious attempts at an answer.

Looks like you were right.

[David Von Pein]

From Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (pages 182 and 953)....

"11:20 p.m. -- Chief Curry enters the Homicide and Robbery office and joins District Attorney Wade, Assistant DA Alexander, Judge Johnston, and Captain Fritz in discussions about the evidence against Oswald. "Have we got enough to charge Oswald with the president's murder?" Curry asks. All are in agreement that there is sufficient evidence to file charges. Assistant DA Alexander drafts the language of complaint number F-154, charging Oswald with the assassination. The words are nearly identical to those used in the Tippit murder charge, only the name of the victim is different. When it is completed, Captain Fritz pulls out a pen and affixes his signature to the complaint, then hands the single-sheet document to District Attorney Wade, who adds his own signature. Judge Johnston takes the form, looks at his watch, then accepts the charge by scribbling his own name and title, along with the words "Filed, 11:26 pm, November 22, 1963." There is a certain amount of satisfaction felt by all in attendance. The Dallas police have done an incredible, some would even say a near-impossible job over just the last eleven and a half hours. In that short span since the president's murder, they have apprehended the man they believe is responsible, and amassed evidence against him that is destined to withstand years of intense scrutiny. Despite the thousands of government man-hours yet to come, the basis of the case against Oswald is collected and assembled by the Dallas police in these first crucial hours. It is a feat the world would soon forget."

"Within a few hours of the assassination, virtually all of Dallas law enforcement already knew Oswald had murdered Kennedy. Indeed, it was obvious to nearly everyone, not just law enforcement. At 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, NBC network news anchorman Bill Ryan reported that "ALL circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the suspect Lee Oswald." Exactly what happened was THAT obvious within hours of the shooting."

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Oh, sure it was "obvious," but they just didn't have the evidence. And there was no need for the rush to judgement, since they already had Oswald charged for the Tippit murder. The authorities had plenty of time to gather the evidence and carefully build a case, but they preferred to hurry it up. For some reason.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 21:35:46 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:46:58 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> At the time of his arraignment, the Dallas Police had NO evidence against Oswald for killing the President.
>
>This, of course, is more nonsense coming from dedicated conspiracy theorist Gil J. Jesus.

It could easily be coming from ANYONE who knew the facts of the case,
and are honest.

Are you honest enough to acknowledge this? Let's see...

> By 1:35 AM CST on 11/23/63, the DPD knew they had Oswald dead to
> rights in the Tippit murder. There was no doubt about his guilt in
> that murder. And they knew the same man who killed Tippit (namely
> Oswald) also was present inside the Book Depository Building at the
> time of Kennedy's murder.

All completely irrelevant, and a simple logical fallacy. Amd it's
simply a lie to claim that there was "no doubt" on the Tippit murder,
indeed, having never gone to court, there is **STILL** serious doubt
that he could be convicted of that murder.

> And the DPD also knew that this same man named Oswald left the TSBD
> within minutes of the President getting shot.

He was not unique in that. So your statement is a logical fallacy.

> And the DPD also had the *very incriminating lies* told by Oswald to
> Captain Fritz throughout the day on 11/22, the biggest of which was
> when Oswald denied ever taking any large-ish paper package into the
> building....

Another logical fallacy. This "lie" was corroborated by eyewitnesses.

>plus Oswald denying that he had said anything to Buell Frazier about
> bringing any "curtain rods" to work that morning.

Ah! Curtain rods! A sure sign of a murderer is someone who owns or
carries curtain rods!

Again, simply another logical fallacy. Where's Huckster when you need
him?

Buell Frazier was under serious scrutiny for the murder himself, he
had his rifle confiscated, and he was forced to take a lie detector
test... these are HISTORICAL FACTS that you'd never learn from Davy...
these lies of omission provide motive for Buell Frazier to lie.

And Davy cannot refute that fact.

> Both of those lies are incredibly important circumstantial evidence
> that would have immediately indicated to the Dallas Police that Lee
> Oswald was guilty of SOMETHING on November 22nd, otherwise he most
> certainly wouldn't have felt the need to tell lies about the large
> package and the "curtain rods".

If you're stupid enough to believe this, it's fortunate that you don't
serve in the law enforcement field.

Amusingly, it's quite simple to refute what Gil pointed out... YOU
SIMPLY CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DPD HAD ON OSWALD FOR KILLING THE
PRESIDENT BEFORE HE WAS ARRAIGNED.

But all we got was begging the question logical fallacies and silly
speculations.

**NOTHING** that a jury would see as evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

Yep... wish I could predict lottery numbers as easily and as correctly
as I can predict cowardice & lies from cowards & liars...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 May 2022 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>From Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (pages 182 and 953)....
>
> "11:20 p.m. -- Chief Curry enters the Homicide and Robbery office
> and joins District Attorney Wade, Assistant DA Alexander, Judge
> Johnston, and Captain Fritz in discussions about the evidence against
> Oswald. "Have we got enough to charge Oswald with the president's
> murder?" Curry asks. All are in agreement that there is sufficient
> evidence to file charges.

Convince us.

Cite the evidence they had at that time, and make your case.

Otherwise, you're simply a proven coward who cannot defend your wacky
assertions.

> ... and amassed evidence against him that is destined to withstand
> years of intense scrutiny.

It hasn't withstood ANY SCRUTINY AT ALL - you refuse to cite what it
is. I can EQUALLY say that the evidence that you're a child molester
is destined to withstand years of intense scrutiny - AND IT WOULD BE
EQUALLY IRREFUTABLE.

If evidence can withstand the scrutiny, why are you terrified of
citing it?

> ..."ALL circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the suspect Lee Oswald."

And what was that evidence?

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:07:47 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >From Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (pages 182 and 953)....
> >
> > "11:20 p.m. -- Chief Curry enters the Homicide and Robbery office
> > and joins District Attorney Wade, Assistant DA Alexander, Judge
> > Johnston, and Captain Fritz in discussions about the evidence against
> > Oswald. "Have we got enough to charge Oswald with the president's
> > murder?" Curry asks. All are in agreement that there is sufficient
> > evidence to file charges.
> Convince us.
>
> Cite the evidence they had at that time, and make your case.
>

> And what was that evidence ?

Amen, but he won't answer because they didn't have any.

Under normal circumstances, you would have evidence BEFORE you file charges on a suspect.
Since Oswald was arraigned at 1:35 am Saturday 11/23/63, I started searching for what evidence they had which caused them to arraign Oswald for the assassination.
What did I find ?

1. No evidence that he fired a rifle

All they had was a paraffin test that showed no nitrates on Oswald’s right cheek.

2. No proof of ownership of the rifle

They didn’t even find the microfilm of the sales transaction that allegedly linked the rifle to him until 2 1/2 to 3 hours AFTER his arraignment.

MR. BELIN: When did you actually find the microfilm of which Waldman Deposition No. 7 is a print ?
MR. SCIBOR: About 4 o’clock in the morning, as far as I can remember.
( 7 H 370 )

3. No fingerprints on the rifle

No identifiable fingerprints on the rifle. ( CE 139 )

Neither the Dallas Police nor the FBI identified Oswald’s prints on the rifle before he was arraigned.

Dallas Police:
MR. DAY….from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his ( Oswald’s ) prints.

Mr. MCCLOY. What about the palm print ?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn’t get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself that it was his palm.
( 4 H 262 )

That fact was broadcast on the “Huntley/Brinkley Report” on NBC by David Brinkley on the evening of the assassination.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/rifle-no-fingerprints.mp4

The rifle was sent to the FBI at 10 pm that evening and was examined the next day.

FBI:

Mr. LATONA I was not successful in developing any prints on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms experts dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip ?
Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, that included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were the cartridge cases furnished to you at that time ?
Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139 ?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
( 4 H 23 )

4. No “Backyard Photographs”

The “backyard photographs” weren’t officially found in the Paine garage until the second search at 1:30 pm Saturday afternoon, about 12 hours AFTER his arraignment for killing the President. ( 7 H 193, 7 H 231 )
According to the official story, they didn’t even have those.

5. No eyewitnesses

All of the eyewitnesses who viewed the lineups were Tippit eyewitnesses. There were no assassination eyewitnesses who identified him as Kennedy’s assassin BEFORE his arraignment.

The fact is that they had NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that Oswald killed Kennedy at the time of his arraignment.

No proof of ownership of the rifle

No photographs of him with the rifle
No fingerprints on the rifle
No witnesses who saw him shooting
Nothing. They had nothing.

Oswald was last seen on the sixth floor at 11:55 am, some 35 minutes before the assassination, not “immediately before the shots were fired” as Curry said in a TV interview.

Bringing a package into the building, whether or not he did, was not a crime under Texas law.

And whether or not he was seen by a police officer in the building after the shooting is immaterial because he worked in the building, a fact verified by his supervisor.

These “connections” of Oswald to the assassination are not evidence of guilt.
Unless you’re Henry Wade. That’s why so many of his convictions were overturned by DNA evidence.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

The fact that they had no evidence against Oswald for the assassination as of 1:35 am goes a long way in explaining why Jack Ruby had carte blanche access to the Dallas police station. Ruby admitted that he planned to kill Oswald at the “Midnight Press Conference”, but that he was afraid of hitting one of the officers by mistake.

On Sunday morning, the Dallas Police made sure that Ruby had access to the basement and waited until he was in position before bringing Oswald down.

And THIS time, they made sure Ruby had a clear shot at Oswald and that none of their officers would be hit by mistake.

Two days after the Dallas Police had led JFK into an ambush, they did the same thing to Oswald.

It's not rocket science, folks.

[Ben Holmes]

I saved this one... it's worthy of being reposted from time to time.
The fact that believers will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to explain these facts,
or even publicly acknowledge them, tells the tale.

[Bud]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:07:41 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 21:35:46 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:46:58 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> At the time of his arraignment, the Dallas Police had NO evidence against Oswald for killing the President.
> >
> >This, of course, is more nonsense coming from dedicated conspiracy theorist Gil J. Jesus.
> It could easily be coming from ANYONE who knew the facts of the case,
> and are honest.
>
> Are you honest enough to acknowledge this? Let's see...
> > By 1:35 AM CST on 11/23/63, the DPD knew they had Oswald dead to
> > rights in the Tippit murder. There was no doubt about his guilt in
> > that murder. And they knew the same man who killed Tippit (namely
> > Oswald) also was present inside the Book Depository Building at the
> > time of Kennedy's murder.
> All completely irrelevant, and a simple logical fallacy. Amd it's
> simply a lie to claim that there was "no doubt" on the Tippit murder,
> indeed, having never gone to court, there is **STILL** serious doubt
> that he could be convicted of that murder.

Likely the DPD felt this was a slam dunk.

> > And the DPD also knew that this same man named Oswald left the TSBD
> > within minutes of the President getting shot.
> He was not unique in that.

Name someone else who was in the building during the shooting that left the area immediately after.

>So your statement is a logical fallacy.
> > And the DPD also had the *very incriminating lies* told by Oswald to
> > Captain Fritz throughout the day on 11/22, the biggest of which was
> > when Oswald denied ever taking any large-ish paper package into the
> > building....
> Another logical fallacy. This "lie" was corroborated by eyewitnesses.

One eyewitness to the bag called it "big", the other eyewitness to the bag said it was "large".

> >plus Oswald denying that he had said anything to Buell Frazier about
> > bringing any "curtain rods" to work that morning.
> Ah! Curtain rods! A sure sign of a murderer is someone who owns or
> carries curtain rods!

Only idiots buy into the curtain rod story. Assume the DPD weren`t the kind of idiots conspiracy hobbyists are.

> Again, simply another logical fallacy. Where's Huckster when you need
> him?
>
> Buell Frazier was under serious scrutiny for the murder himself,

He did drive the murderer to the scene of the crime.

>he
> had his rifle confiscated, and he was forced to take a lie detector
> test... these are HISTORICAL FACTS that you'd never learn from Davy...
> these lies of omission provide motive for Buell Frazier to lie.

But fail to show that he did.

> And Davy cannot refute that fact.
> > Both of those lies are incredibly important circumstantial evidence
> > that would have immediately indicated to the Dallas Police that Lee
> > Oswald was guilty of SOMETHING on November 22nd, otherwise he most
> > certainly wouldn't have felt the need to tell lies about the large
> > package and the "curtain rods".
> If you're stupid enough to believe this, it's fortunate that you don't
> serve in the law enforcement field.

I`m sure these were red flags to the DPD. They caught him in lies, lies obviously told to distance himself from incriminating information.

> Amusingly, it's quite simple to refute what Gil pointed out... YOU
> SIMPLY CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DPD HAD ON OSWALD FOR KILLING THE
> PRESIDENT BEFORE HE WAS ARRAIGNED.
>
> But all we got was begging the question logical fallacies and silly
> speculations.

Just because you don`t like the things he mentioned doesn`t mean they don`t exist in the evidence. And just because you choose not to give weight to them doesn`t mean those who`s opinions mattered didn`t.

> **NOTHING** that a jury would see as evidence.

Empty claim. A jury might ask themselves why Oswald would lie about bringing a "big"/"large" bag to work, and not think it some strange coincidence that a large bag was found near where shots were known to have been fired from.

[Gil Jesus]

Typical Bud. All comments and no evidence.

[Bud]

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 May 2022 11:00:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:07:41 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 21:35:46 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:46:58 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> At the time of his arraignment, the Dallas Police had NO evidence against Oswald for killing the President.
>>>
>>>This, of course, is more nonsense coming from dedicated conspiracy theorist Gil J. Jesus.
>>
>> It could easily be coming from ANYONE who knew the facts of the case,
>> and are honest.

Chickenshit remains quiet.

>> Are you honest enough to acknowledge this? Let's see...

Chickenshit isn't...

>>> By 1:35 AM CST on 11/23/63, the DPD knew they had Oswald dead to
>>> rights in the Tippit murder. There was no doubt about his guilt in
>>> that murder. And they knew the same man who killed Tippit (namely
>>> Oswald) also was present inside the Book Depository Building at the
>>> time of Kennedy's murder.
>>
>> All completely irrelevant, and a simple logical fallacy. Amd it's
>> simply a lie to claim that there was "no doubt" on the Tippit murder,
>> indeed, having never gone to court, there is **STILL** serious doubt
>> that he could be convicted of that murder.
>
> Likely the DPD felt this was a slam dunk.

Speculation doesn't refute the facts I posted above.

>>> And the DPD also knew that this same man named Oswald left the TSBD
>>> within minutes of the President getting shot.
>>
>> He was not unique in that.
>
> Name someone else who was in the building during the shooting that
> left the area immediately after.

Not a refutation. Shifting the burden.

>>So your statement is a logical fallacy.
>>
>>> And the DPD also had the *very incriminating lies* told by Oswald to
>>> Captain Fritz throughout the day on 11/22, the biggest of which was
>>> when Oswald denied ever taking any large-ish paper package into the
>>> building....
>>
>> Another logical fallacy. This "lie" was corroborated by eyewitnesses.
>
> One eyewitness to the bag called it "big", the other eyewitness to
> the bag said it was "large".

Not a refutation. My lunch sack is "large."

>>>plus Oswald denying that he had said anything to Buell Frazier about
>>> bringing any "curtain rods" to work that morning.
>>
>> Ah! Curtain rods! A sure sign of a murderer is someone who owns or
>> carries curtain rods!
>

> Only idiots...

Clearly, only idiots use logical fallacies to debate.

>> Again, simply another logical fallacy. Where's Huckster when you need
>> him?
>>
>> Buell Frazier was under serious scrutiny for the murder himself,
>
> He did drive the murderer to the scene of the crime.

You'd truly be a moron if you thought that was the reason for DPD's
actions.

>>he
>> had his rifle confiscated, and he was forced to take a lie detector
>> test... these are HISTORICAL FACTS that you'd never learn from Davy...
>> these lies of omission provide motive for Buell Frazier to lie.

LFD.

>> And Davy cannot refute that fact.

Nor, obviously, can Chickenshit.

>>> Both of those lies are incredibly important circumstantial evidence
>>> that would have immediately indicated to the Dallas Police that Lee
>>> Oswald was guilty of SOMETHING on November 22nd, otherwise he most
>>> certainly wouldn't have felt the need to tell lies about the large
>>> package and the "curtain rods".
>>
>> If you're stupid enough to believe this, it's fortunate that you don't
>> serve in the law enforcement field.
>
> I`m sure these were red flags to the DPD.

I'm sure your speculation is nonsense.

>> Amusingly, it's quite simple to refute what Gil pointed out... YOU
>> SIMPLY CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DPD HAD ON OSWALD FOR KILLING THE
>> PRESIDENT BEFORE HE WAS ARRAIGNED.
>>
>> But all we got was begging the question logical fallacies and silly
>> speculations.
>

> Just because ...

Yep... indeed true... just because all we saw were logical fallacies
and silly speculations is no cause to laugh at you morons...

But we do it anyway!

>> **NOTHING** that a jury would see as evidence.
>
> Empty claim.

Empty whining...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 May 2022 06:08:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

This is, of course, a logical fallacy on Chickenshit's part.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 5 May 2022 13:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:52:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Thu, 5 May 2022 12:05:12 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:58:16 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>
>>>> Look through the witness statements, police reports, physical evidence and police interrogations from that weekend and get back to us.
>>>
>>>What witnesses saw him firing at Kennedy ?
>>>What physical evidence did they have ? All they had was a paraffin test that proved ( as far as they were concerned ) that he hadn't fired a rifle.
>>>All of the witnesses who viewed the lineups were Tippit witnesses. There were no assassination witnesse who identified him while he was alive.
>>>They didn't link the rifle to him until 2 1/2 to 3 hours AFTER his arraignment.
>>>And what police interrogation sessions were recorded ?
>>>
>>>So I ask again, what evdience did they have against Oswald for killing the President before he was arraigned ?
>> He won't answer.
>>
>> Cowards have NEVER answered this question...
>
> Crooked games and shifting the burden is all you folks have.
>
> Did the DPD accept that Oswald`s prints were found on the rifle?

Do liars accept lies? Yes.

Do honest people? No.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 5 May 2022 15:15:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:01:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 May 2022 12:01:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:58:32 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:53:39 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cure your own ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> <snicker>
>>>>
>>>> Translation: "I'm a f**king dumbass."
>>>
>>> You ...
>>
>> No Chickenshit... we're talking about *YOU*.
>
> Always ends the same, you ...

No Chickenshit... we're talking about *YOU*. What part didn't you
understand?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 09:47:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:53:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 06:46:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:14:52 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>
>>>> When did they find Oswald`s prints on the rifle? His prints on the rifle don`t link him to the rifle?
>>>
>>>They didn't find any prints before he was arraigned.
>>>
>>>MR. DAY....from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his ( Oswald's ) prints.

>>>
>>>Mr. MCCLOY. What about the palm print ?
>>>
>>>Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself that it was his palm.
>>>
>>>( 4 H 262 )
>>>

>>>Then at 10 pm, they shipped the rifle to the FBI and the FBI could not identify ANY prints on the rifle.

>>>
>>>Mr. LATONA I was not successful in developing any prints on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms experts dismantle the weapon and I processed the
>>>complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
>>>
>>>Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip ?
>>>
>>>Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, that included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.
>>>
>>>Mr. EISENBERG. Were the cartridge cases furnished to you at that time ?
>>>
>>>Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no prints.
>>>
>>>Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139 ?
>>>
>>>Mr. LATONA. That is right.
>>>
>>>( 4 H 23 )
>>>

>>>https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0016a.htm
>>>
>>>At the time of his arraignment, the Dallas Police had NO evidence against Oswald for killing the President.
>>
>> So not only can't any believers offer citations to any evidence
>> against Oswald when he was arraigned, but Gil has pointed out that
>> they flat DIDN'T HAVE what believers have lied and claimed that they
>> did.
>>
>> When does the truth need lies to support it?
>
> What lie?

Notice folks, that Chickenshit had *NO RESPONSE* to Gil pointing out
that at the time of the arrest, the DPD had NO evidence against Oswald
for killing the President.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 09:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:57:30 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 07:21:01 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:53:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>> So not only can't any believers offer citations to any evidence
>>>> against Oswald when he was arraigned, but Gil has pointed out that
>>>> they flat DIDN'T HAVE what believers have lied and claimed that they
>>>> did.
>>>>
>>>> When does the truth need lies to support it?
>>>

>>>And so you have to ask yourself, how can an honest legal system allow the charging and arraignment
>>>of a suspect accused of an crime without evidence that he in fact did commit that crime ?
>>
>> I suspect that the DPD would have arrested a local church pastor, if
>> need be, to have demonstrated that they're on the ball, and have
>> solved the murder of a President in their city.
>
> I suspect I'm an idiot.

I wouldn't argue that with you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 09:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:41:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:03:24 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:52:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He won't answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cowards have NEVER answered this question...

>>>> A lot of comments but as usual, Chickenshit can't provide any evidence.
>>>
>>> The evidence is all available online. I`m examining your ideas.
>> How can you be "examining" Gil, WHEN IT WAS HIS QUESTION TO YOU?

(No answer)

>>>> They didn't have any evidence against Oswald for killing the President before he was charged.
>>>
>>> What a stupid thing to say. His prints weren`t all over the
>>> location the shots were fired from?
>>
>> As were a dozen others...
>
> Support that.

No.

I'll just allow *YOUR* stupidity to shine forth... you're arguing
right now that on the 6th floor, NO-ONE OTHER THAN LEE HARVEY OSWALD
left prints...

How stupid of you!

(and, in any case, it's *already* been supported in this forum that
unidentified prints were found. Chickenshit's too senile to remember.)

>>Are you stupid?
>>> His prints weren`t on the rifle found where shots were known to have
>>> been fired from?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> We disagree.

I have the more credible evidence.

You lose!

>>>> And of course, these nutters don't find anything wrong with charging someone with a crime without any evidence.
>>>
>>> You need to stop blaming other people for your ignorance.
>> You need to stop proving how stupid you are.
>>>> I ask for evidence and his answer is "go find it". LOL
>>>
>>> I told you where to look.
>>
>> No, you didn't.
>
> We disagree.

Notice folks, no citation...

>>>> Not only is he ignorant of the facts of this case, he's ignorant of anything to do with police procedures or the workings of the criminal justice system.
>>>
>>> Ironic, considering what you are saying is at odds with the way the real criminal investigators conducted this case.
>> You say things, you cannot cite things...
>
> They charged him with both murders.

You say things, you cannot cite things.

>>>> He refuses to look at opposing evidence and is too lazy to do any research to defend his position.
>>>
>>> I always look at what you guys produce...
>>
>> And run from it.
>
> I apply reasoning to it and find it wanting.

You say things, you don't show things.

>>> My position has been on the table for decades now.
>>
>> Yet you can't defend it.
>
> Against what?

The evidence.

>Why does it need defending?

Because the evidence contradicts the WCR's lies...

>>> Where`s yours?
>>
>> Same place yours is... a reference to a book.
>
> My has been on the table for decades.

"My" has been on the table for decades.

>>>> He'd rather nit-pik and chickenshit word meanings.
>>>
>>> So ...
>>
>> So what?
>
> So what I said.

You said nothing.

>>>> What a loser.
>>>
>>> Go buy a truck.
>>
>> Chrissy's gunna be upset at this reference...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 5 May 2022 12:03:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:01:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 May 2022 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:29:02 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:16:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've asked this same question numerous times... the kooks keep saying
>>>>> that the DPD had this "wrapped up" that weekend, yet have refused,
>>>>> TIME AND TIME AGAIN, from listing the evidence that the DPD had that
>>>>> weekend.

>>>>>
>>>>> I predict you'll get a few logical fallacies, a few lies, but **NO**
>>>>> serious attempts at an answer.
>>>>

>>>> Under normal circumstances, you would have evidence BEFORE you file charges on a

>>>> suspect. I'm wondering what that evidence was that caused them to believe that
>>>> Oswald was responsible for the assassination.

>>>
>>> Look through the witness statements, police reports, physical
>>> evidence and police interrogations from that weekend and get back to
>>> us.

>> You say things, you refuse to cite things...
>
> I am only ...

Saying things, unable to prove things.

>> But you *DO* support what I stated.

And did again...