A Question for the Lone Nutters on the Tippit shells.

[Gil Jesus]

What evidence do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

> What evidence do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?

This is number 5 on the list I had the other day when I answered all your questions in one fell swoop:

Shifting the burden of proof. Answered, but not to your satisfaction. You'll claim it wasn't answered, but it was.

Fix your questions. Do not shift the burden of proof.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Instead of answering the question, Chucky would rather argue about the rules of the game.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:48:00 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

> This is number 5 on the list I had the other day when I answered all your questions in one fell swoop:

I asked for your evidence. Not your stupid comments.

And because you're such a coward to answer questions ( you ran from 39 of the 40 ) and a goddamned liar, you force me to prove it.

You never answered question # 5, you're a liar.

And Question # 5 didn't have anything to do with the FOUR shells. It had to do with ONE of the shells.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/VjttIkBvjRY/m/sxAGerRsBAAJ

Now answer the question, asshole: what evidence do you have that the four shells were fired at 10th and Patton ?

[Chuck Schuyler]

The "rules of the game" isn't an artificial construct.

You claim Oswald shot at JFK's motorcade from the grassy knoll and hustled back inside the TSBD. Your claim, your burden. Gil implies the .38 shells found at the Tippit murder scene might have been swapped out or planted. Gil's claim, Gil's burden.

One side has presented it's case, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. No need to play endless games of Fetch the Stick.

Show the proof for your collective claims.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

I'm not playing your game.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:00:54 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:48:00 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

> > This is number 5 on the list I had the other day when I answered all your questions in one fell swoop:

> I asked for your evidence.

Not necessary for me to supply "evidence" because you haven't established anything nefarious, nor have you stated what evidence you would accept, nor am I making a claim separate than what is historically accepted, and we do not put dead suspects on trial, Johnny Cochrane.

>Not your stupid comments.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid comment.

>
> And because you're such a coward to answer questions ( you ran from 39 of the 40 ) and a goddamned liar, you force me to prove it.

I answered all of them the other day, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION,

>
> You never answered question # 5, you're a liar.
>
> And Question # 5 didn't have anything to do with the FOUR shells. It had to do with ONE of the shells.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/VjttIkBvjRY/m/sxAGerRsBAAJ

This question still fits into the category I noted in my thread post from the other day when I answered ALL of your hobby points in one fell swoop.

>
> Now answer the question, asshole: what evidence do you have that the four shells were fired at 10th and Patton ?

Fringe reset. Answered endlessly, but not to your satisfaction. Establish what you would accept as proof since this is a well-worn topic, and since all of the evidence, testimony, etc. is approaching sixty years of age, there will be nothing new. Bigdog gave you a short answer. Bud linked to testimony and commented. I've personally scene dozens of threads covering this topic at this board and at John's board over the decades. Many thoughtful answers, many snarky answers, but no answers that meet your standards.

Now what?

[Chuck Schuyler]

That's okay. You're still my favorite JFK kook.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 3:56:44?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
>> What evidence do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>

>Shifting the burden of proof.

No moron, it's never "shifting the burden" to ask someone to support
what they believe. It's ALWAYS your burden to support what you
believe.

You basicly deny having ANY BURDEN AT ALL. And that's simply
cowardice.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 06:12:26 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You claim Oswald shot at JFK's motorcade from the grassy knoll and
> hustled back inside the TSBD. Your claim, your burden. Gil implies the
> .38 shells found at the Tippit murder scene might have been swapped
> out or planted. Gil's claim, Gil's burden.

Gil has made no such claim. YOU claim that the .38 shells are
legitimate evidence. Your claim, your burden.

>One side has presented it's case, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION.

Not to the "satisfaction" of the majority of America. Do try to be
honest.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 06:23:30 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:00:54?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:48:00?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
>> > This is number 5 on the list I had the other day when I answered all your questions in one fell swoop:
>
>> I asked for your evidence.
>
>Not necessary for me to supply "evidence" because you haven't
established anything nefarious,

IT'S YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM!!!

It's your burden. Carry your burden coward!

> nor have you stated what evidence you would accept,

ANY EVIDENCE YOU'RE CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING.

(But you can't... can you?)

> nor am I making a claim separate than what is historically
> accepted, and we do not put dead suspects on trial, Johnny Cochrane.

There is no "history" accepting anything, doing anything, thinking
anything.

Most of America rejects your claims.


>>Not your stupid comments.

>>
>> And because you're such a coward to answer questions ( you ran from 39 of the 40 ) and a goddamned liar, you force me to prove it.
>>

>> You never answered question # 5, you're a liar.
>>
>> And Question # 5 didn't have anything to do with the FOUR shells. It had to do with ONE of the shells.
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/VjttIkBvjRY/m/sxAGerRsBAAJ
>

>This question still fits ...


You've just been proven a liar, and you still whine?

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 06:23:30 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:00:54?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:48:00?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> >
> >> > This is number 5 on the list I had the other day when I answered all your questions in one fell swoop:
> >
> >> I asked for your evidence.
> >
> >Not necessary for me to supply "evidence" because you haven't
> established anything nefarious,

Gil's toady dropped this turd on the thread:

> IT'S YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM!!!

I never claimed anything nefarious with the Tippit shells. Gil implied it. Please pay attention.

>
> It's your burden. Carry your burden coward!

Gil's claim, Gil's burden.

> > nor have you stated what evidence you would accept,

> ANY EVIDENCE YOU'RE CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING.

State what is acceptable. No need for a constant game of Fetch the Stick.

>
> (But you can't... can you?)
> > nor am I making a claim separate than what is historically
> > accepted, and we do not put dead suspects on trial, Johnny Cochrane.

> There is no "history" accepting anything, doing anything, thinking
> anything.

Not true. JFK's Presidential Museum links to the WCR and specifically notes that the acoustics evidence for a fourth shot has been proven false. Our US history reads that Oswald killed JFK, and that there is no KNOWN conspiracy behind the murder.

>
> Most of America rejects your claims.

So?

>
>
> >>Not your stupid comments.
> >>
> >> And because you're such a coward to answer questions ( you ran from 39 of the 40 ) and a goddamned liar, you force me to prove it.
> >>
> >> You never answered question # 5, you're a liar.
> >>
> >> And Question # 5 didn't have anything to do with the FOUR shells. It had to do with ONE of the shells.

> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/VjttIkBvjRY/m/sxAGerRsBAAJ
> >
> >This question still fits ...
>
>
> You've just been proven a liar, and you still whine?

Whining is what you and Gil do.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:39:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> No moron, it's never "shifting the burden" to ask someone to support
> what they believe. It's ALWAYS your burden to support what you
> believe.
>
> You basicly deny having ANY BURDEN AT ALL. And that's simply
> cowardice.

Absolutely. That's one asshole who refuses to answer the question.
If he had already answered it, he should have no problem repeating that answer.
A simple copy-and-paste would to the trick.
But he continues to duck and dodge the question instead.

There are ways to show if those shells were fired at 10th and Patton.
Acting as a proxy for the Warren Commission, I asked him to see his evidence.
He refuses to show it, claiming he has no burden to do so.

He has a burden to PROVE what he says is true and what he supports ( the Warren Commission case ).
By refusing to show his evidence, he proves that he cannot defend the very "evidence" he supports.

Yes, he's a coward AND a liar.
A real LOSER.
Beware. He's probably got some land in Florida he'll sell you.
ROFLMAO

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 11:03:05 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> Whining is what you and Gil do.

Hey asshole:
Who's whining ? I asked a simple question.
You refuse to answer it.
No problem.

[Bud]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 4:56:44 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> What evidence do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?

The case evidence is available online, look it up yourself.

[Bud]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:39:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > No moron, it's never "shifting the burden" to ask someone to support
> > what they believe. It's ALWAYS your burden to support what you
> > believe.
> >
> > You basicly deny having ANY BURDEN AT ALL. And that's simply
> > cowardice.
> Absolutely. That's one asshole who refuses to answer the question.

Who owes you answers to anything that pops into your head?

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 11:42:39 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> The case evidence is available online, look it up yourself.

Oh good, another asshole who can't answer. That's two.

[Bud]

That was the answer. Look it up yourself, nobody signed up to do your research for you.

[BT George]

If I ever have a loved one who is murdered, I pray no one on the jury takes the kind of logic you apply towards this case. The evidence that supports why we can be confident that the .38 shells are actually properly matched to LHO's pistol is well documented, yet you refuse to accept it---*if* you are even aware of it. But let me help you with some related thoughts on case evidence, logic, and reason:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------repost---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 4, 2023, 2:19:16 PM
Good. I once had a favored post covering this:

"Many CT’s who deny Oswald killed Tippit will point to the failure
to conclusively match the bullets recovered from Tippit to his weapon to
the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. But several facts are
missed in that:

1) At least one reviewer (Joseph Nichol) believed he could match one of
them.

2) It can be safely assumed that none of the test shots fired from the gun
could be conclusively matched either. This is because the .38 barrel
had been modified to accept the slightly smaller (yet longer) .38
Special ammunition. Yet *accept* is the key word, because the barrel
would have still been slightly larger, thus causing the smaller .38
Special rounds to wobble as they came down the barrel, ensuring a
unique scoring pattern on each one.

3) The shells ejected at the scene (as found and as seen by witnesses who
later ID’d Oswald) could all be matched to Oswald’s
pistol to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

4) The class characteristics 5 lands and groves with a right twist were
the same. And the bullets also displayed many similar microscopic
scratches.

5) The Tippit bullets showed signs of gas erosion, caused by escaping
propellant slipping between the bullet's surface and the inside of the
barrel of the gun; also consistent with the weapon Oswald owned.

6) Oswald was in possession of this very weapon at the time of his arrest.
An arrest made not very far from the crime scene and because Oswald was
observed acting suspiciously before ducking into the theater without
paying.

7) Since the very weapon Oswald had purchased and was in possession of at
the time of his arrest was modified in such a way as to produce the
very kind of variable scoring patterns observed in 2) and fit the
profile of the other noted points and the available witness testimony,
I say that the murder weapon and the shooter *have* been matched to the
exclusion of all guns and persons in the world! (Or at least DFW at the
time.)"

[Bud]

Watch as Gil handwaves away everything you mentioned. That`s the silly game.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 12:50:33 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

First of all, the topic isn't the bullets, it's the empty shells.

I believe the shells were fired from the handgun because they displayed a bulging common with a .38 special round.
They also contained the impression of the weapon's firing pin and the breech face. ( 7 HSCA 407-408 )

> 3) The shells ejected at the scene ( as found and as seen by witnesses who later ID’d Oswald ) could all be matched to Oswald’s pistol to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

And how many of those witnesses identified the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found ?
You don't have to name them, just give us a number.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 2:09:18 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> Watch as Gil handwaves away everything you mentioned. That`s the silly game.

Don't worry, if I'm looking for any shit out of you, I'll squeeze your head.
That's the Gilly game.
ROFLMAO

[Bud]

How could they?

[Bud]

You ran from everything he wrote. That`s the Gilly game.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:09:24 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:39:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > No moron, it's never "shifting the burden" to ask someone to support
> > what they believe. It's ALWAYS your burden to support what you
> > believe.
> >
> > You basicly deny having ANY BURDEN AT ALL. And that's simply
> > cowardice.

> Absolutely.

Says the guys who refuse to tell us what they think happened that day.

>That's one asshole who refuses to answer the question.

Except I did, asshole. You don't like my answers.

> If he had already answered it, he should have no problem repeating that answer.
> A simple copy-and-paste would to the trick.

Shifting the burden. Fringe reset. Trivia.

> But he continues to duck and dodge the question instead.

Except I don't.

>
> There are ways to show if those shells were fired at 10th and Patton.
> Acting as a proxy for the Warren Commission, I asked him to see his evidence.

I am specifically NOT standing in as a proxy for the WC. That's your desire. You want me to stand in by proxy for the WC so you can bounce your speculative hobby point nit-picks off of me and have me play Fetch the Stick. Not doing it.

> He refuses to show it, claiming he has no burden to do so.

I have no burden to re-investigate a case I feel was already handled correctly.

>
> He has a burden to PROVE what he says is true and what he supports ( the Warren Commission case ).

Wrong. I'm here to read your JFK conspiracy story. When will you be presenting it?

> By refusing to show his evidence, he proves that he cannot defend the very "evidence" he supports.

I have no evidence nor burden to defend anything. I may choose to do so at certain times, but I have no burden to do so. I was two years old when JFK was killed. It was already investigated and concluded before I was in school.

>
> Yes, he's a coward AND a liar.
> A real LOSER.
> Beware. He's probably got some land in Florida he'll sell you.
> ROFLMAO

How about a truck with a bad transmission, chump?

Keep entertaining us Fish Part. You're doing a great job.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 08:46:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 08:42:37 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 12:34:22 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:09:24?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:39:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> No moron, it's never "shifting the burden" to ask someone to support
>>> what they believe. It's ALWAYS your burden to support what you
>>> believe.
>>>
>>> You basicly deny having ANY BURDEN AT ALL. And that's simply
>>> cowardice.
>
>> Absolutely.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>That's one asshole who refuses to answer the question.
>

>Except I did, I'm an asshole. You don't like my answers.


Lying can't convince people.

>> If he had already answered it, he should have no problem repeating that answer.
>> A simple copy-and-paste would to the trick.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> But he continues to duck and dodge the question instead.
>>

>> There are ways to show if those shells were fired at 10th and Patton.
>> Acting as a proxy for the Warren Commission, I asked him to see his evidence.
>
>I am specifically NOT standing in as a proxy for the WC.

Then you lose. As does the WCR.

>> He refuses to show it, claiming he has no burden to do so.
>>

>> He has a burden to PROVE what he says is true and what he supports ( the Warren Commission case ).
>>

>> By refusing to show his evidence, he proves that he cannot defend the very "evidence" he supports.
>
>I have no evidence nor burden to defend anything.

Lies will not convince anyone......

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:18:00 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 08:03:03 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:39:27?AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 06:23:30 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:00:54?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:48:00?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This is number 5 on the list I had the other day when I answered all your questions in one fell swoop:
>>>
>>>> I asked for your evidence.
>>>
>>>Not necessary for me to supply "evidence" because you haven't
>> established anything nefarious,
>>

>> IT'S YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM!!!
>

>I never claimed...


Okay, so Oswald's innocent in the Tippit murder.

Good of you to admit it.

>> It's your burden. Carry your burden coward!

Your burden, carry your burden coward!

>>> nor have you stated what evidence you would accept,
>
>> ANY EVIDENCE YOU'RE CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING.
>
>State what is acceptable. No need for a constant game of Fetch the Stick.

I just did. You ran.

>> (But you can't... can you?)

And proved that you couldn't.

>>> nor am I making a claim separate than what is historically
>>> accepted, and we do not put dead suspects on trial, Johnny Cochrane.
>
>> There is no "history" accepting anything, doing anything, thinking
>> anything.
>
>Not true.

Is water wet where you live?

>> Most of America rejects your claims.
>
>So?

You lose.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 11:09:16 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 11:56:03 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 11:54:17 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 3:34:23 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> Except I did, asshole. You don't like my answers.

This is first time I've posted this question.
How the fuck could you have already answered a question that I'm posting for the first time ?

You're a fucking LIAR.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:07:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 12:34:22 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:09:24?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:39:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> No moron, it's never "shifting the burden" to ask someone to support
> >>> what they believe. It's ALWAYS your burden to support what you
> >>> believe.
> >>>
> >>> You basicly deny having ANY BURDEN AT ALL. And that's simply
> >>> cowardice.
> >
> >> Absolutely.
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >>That's one asshole who refuses to answer the question.
> >
> >Except I did, I'm an asshole. You don't like my answers.
>
>
> Lying can't convince people.

These people are liars and deceivers. They can't answer a simple question honestly because they're not honest people.
This yutz says he's already answered a question that I'm asking for the first time.
What a lying piece of shit.

[Chuck Schuyler]

The Tippit shells question?

I answered it, but NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION.

Why don't you provide an explanation for your hobby point?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 4:56:44 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> What evidence do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?

Shifting the burden of proof. Remember the law?

See this quote on the fifth page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence, indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

I pointed this out to you previously.

You need to provide the evidence the evidence is not legit, not just assume it and ask us to prove otherwise.

There is also this, from page two:
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].

You want to handle this like a court case, then follow the law. The shells are admissible.

Your beef is apparently with the law, not with the evidence.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> You want to handle this like a court case, then follow the law. The shells are admissible.

Who said anything about admissibility ?
Your reading comprehension is lacking.

The question is:

What proof do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?

Try to keep up, oh "more knowledgeable" one.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 8:36:46 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> I answered it, but NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION.

I said that this is the first time I've asked this question.
You claim you've previously answered it.

Prove it. Post the link to your answer.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 8:36:46 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>

> Why don't you provide an explanation for your hobby point?

My explanation is that you're a goddamned liar.

I posted only three questions of the 40 about the Tippit shells. And none of them was the topic of this thread.

QUESTION # 1. noted that the two Remington Peters shells had the initials "RD" and one Western shell contained the intials either "DC" or "DO" and
asked, Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?

QUESTION # 5. asked who found shell Q-75, Benavides or Virginia Davis ?

QUESTION # 11. asked which was the shell in the chain of custody between Benavides, Poe and Barnes, Q-74 or Q-77 ?

You replied to NONE of them. In fact, you only responded to ONE question of the 40 and that was question # 6, having to do with threats against the President.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Cq3ejSQ5hEw

And you never answered one of the three questions about the shells, to my liking or not.
PERIOD.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>

> You need to provide the evidence the evidence is not legit, not just assume it and ask us to prove otherwise.

LOL...I'm sorry, I thought in America it was the burden of the prosecution to prove its case and part of that
involved proving the evidence is authentic.

Let me ask you this, Hank:

Was any chain-of-custody forms were ever filled out for the shells currently in evidence ?

Were the shells photographed as found, being that there were police photographers present at the scene ?

Did the persons who found the shells identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found ?

Did the police officer who marked two shells given to him identify ANY of the shells currently in evidence as the shells he marked ?

Whose Initials appear on two of the shells that do not correspond to anyone known to have been in the chain of custody ?

Do the shells match in number and manufacturer the bullets that were removed from Off. Tippit’s body ?

Were the shells originally identified by police as .38 specials ?

Do the shells contain corrosion consistent with having been in a gunbelt or a bullet slide ?

It's all here for you and your asshole pals to cry about:

https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells/

[Bud]

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 5:17:54 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >
> > You need to provide the evidence the evidence is not legit, not just assume it and ask us to prove otherwise.
> LOL...I'm sorry, I thought in America it was the burden of the prosecution to prove its case and part of that
> involved proving the evidence is authentic.

What reason is there to believe they are not? If you think there is a problem with the evidence it is up to you to make a positive argument showing this.

It has been explained to you over and over that there was no trial, so there was no prosecution. You are too stupid to understand this so you repeat the claim over and over.

> Let me ask you this, Hank:
>
> Was any chain-of-custody forms were ever filled out for the shells currently in evidence ?

You refuse to show this is necessary.

> Were the shells photographed as found, being that there were police photographers present at the scene ?

You refuse to show this is necessary.

> Did the persons who found the shells identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found ?

You refuse to show this is necessary.

> Did the police officer who marked two shells given to him identify ANY of the shells currently in evidence as the shells he marked ?

Where they the only marks?

Didn`t the crime scene specialist at the scene take control of the evidence?

> Whose Initials appear on two of the shells that do not correspond to anyone known to have been in the chain of custody ?

You refuse to show this is true.

> Do the shells match in number and manufacturer the bullets that were removed from Off. Tippit’s body ?

You refuse to show this is necessary.

> Were the shells originally identified by police as .38 specials ?

You refuse to show this is significant.

> Do the shells contain corrosion consistent with having been in a gunbelt or a bullet slide ?

You refuse to show this is true.

> It's all here for you and your asshole pals to cry about:

A buffet of nothingburgers.

> https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells/

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 6:42:01 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< typical loser responses from a typical loser >
> A buffet of nothingburgers.

The only nothingburger here is your mother, because one of her contributions to the world was you.
She must be proud of your ignorance and stupidity.
Were you the stupidest dumbfuck in your family, or were all her kids born without brains ?

Here's the link where I "refuse to show" the evidence Bud is "chickenshit" to look at :
https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells/

[Bud]

If you actually has something you wouldn`t be here, stupid.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 17:36:44 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 6:32:57?PM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

Why don't you publicly acknowledge that lies won't convince anyone?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 01:56:40 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Gotta love it when a believer gets spanked with the truth.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ouch! Huckster got spanked again!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 18:20:53 -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?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:41:59 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 07:46:13 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:28:25 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> > You want to handle this like a court case, then follow the law. The shells are admissible.

> Who said anything about admissibility ?

You. At your website, and in various discussions at this board about evidence you say would've been thrown out of court and would've allowed your "client" Oswald to walk out of court as a free man.

> Your reading comprehension is lacking.

Ironic.

>
> The question is:
>
> What proof do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?

Fringe reset. He just answered you.

>
> Try to keep up, oh "more knowledgeable" one.

Try to make a positive case in favor of something instead of asking us to play Fetch the Stick.

[Chuck Schuyler]

What is this "evidence" of? What you're doing in reality is using your hobby points to make some sort of vague claim.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 12:55:24 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:28:25?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
>>> You want to handle this like a court case, then follow the law. The shells are admissible.
>
>> Who said anything about admissibility ?
>
>You.

Quote & cite the post you're quoting from.

But you won't.

You're a coward...

>> Your reading comprehension is lacking.
>>

>> The question is:
>>
>> What proof do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>
>Fringe reset. He just answered you.

Quote the answer that actually answers the question.

But you can't... you're merely lying again.

>> Try to keep up, oh "more knowledgeable" one.
>
>Try to make a positive case in favor of something instead of asking us to play Fetch the Stick.

This is, of course, something *YOU* refuse to do.

Why is that, coward?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 12:57:07 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 6:31:50?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 6:42:01?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> < typical loser responses from a typical loser >
>>> A buffet of nothingburgers.
>>
>> The only nothingburger here is your mother, because one of her contributions to the world was you.
>> She must be proud of your ignorance and stupidity.
>> Were you the stupidest dumbfuck in your family, or were all her kids born without brains ?
>>
>> Here's the link where I "refuse to show" the evidence Bud is "chickenshit" to look at :
>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells/
>
>What is this "evidence" of?

Tut tut tut, coward. Is there any "evidence" listed in that cite?

You're clearly too stupid to figure this out.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 4:56:44 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> What evidence do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?

Still waiting to see your evidence, WC supporters.

[Bud]

Your issue, your burden.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:16:22 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 12:55:24 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:28:25?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >
> >>> You want to handle this like a court case, then follow the law. The shells are admissible.
> >
> >> Who said anything about admissibility ?
> >
> >You.
> Quote & cite the post you're quoting from.

It's at Gil's website. Surely he can point it out to you if you're too lazy to read through his website and find examples about how he feels things wouldn't be admissible in court, or that he questions the validity of the evidence.

https://gil-jesus.com/

On the Tippit murder:

https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 4:56:44 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> What evidence do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?

What evidence do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are NOT the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?

Remember the law? Don’t shift the burden of proof.

See this quote on the fifth page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence, indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

In this case, there is no need for us to do what you ask. You need to provide sufficient evidence that the evidence is not legit. When do you intend to start?

[Hank Sienzant]

You only quoted one line of my response and ignored the rest. How “conspiracy theorist” of you.
I pointed out above exactly where you are going wrong, your failure to understand how the law works.
Try to deal with the points I make, don’t be like Ben.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wem9wqlTuHA/m/jRMN3OJ8CQAJ
== Quote ==

Shifting the burden of proof. Remember the law?

See this quote on the fifth page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_

“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

I pointed this out to you previously.

You need to provide the evidence the evidence is not legit, not just assume it and ask us to prove otherwise.

There is also this, from page two:
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].

You want to handle this like a court case, then follow the law. The shells are admissible.

Your beef is apparently with the law, not with the evidence.

== unquote ==

[BT George]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 1:29:14 PM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 12:50:33 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> First of all, the topic isn't the bullets, it's the empty shells.
>
Surely you are able to understand the *connection* between the two?

> I believe the shells were fired from the handgun because they displayed a bulging common with a .38 special round.
> They also contained the impression of the weapon's firing pin and the breech face. ( 7 HSCA 407-408 )
>
> > 3) The shells ejected at the scene ( as found and as seen by witnesses who later ID’d Oswald ) could all be matched to Oswald’s pistol to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
>
> And how many of those witnesses identified the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found ?
> You don't have to name them, just give us a number.

Not sure why that matters? Unless one--as you apparently do--assumes they were switched to frame your patsy. (But if so, can you explain why they didn't also just switch to *matching* bullets, which would have been much more convenient for the "frame up".) I am sure you know that the records indicate that Barbara and Virginia Davis saw a man dumping out shells from what is manifestly a revolver and later identified Oswald as being that man. Likewise, I am sure you are aware that the records indicate both women found one shell each and pointed them out to the DPD Hence we have strong reason to say at least 2 witnesses can be described as I have in 3) above.

If you mean "positively" ID'd the shells by marking or something, you will need to show that 1963 it was standard Police practice to have witnesses formally ID the shells that police were in possession of because *they* discovered them. I would also ask you to show where they contemporaneously disputed that any of the shells in evidence were the ones they found.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 5:17:54 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >
> > You need to provide the evidence the evidence is not legit, not just assume it and ask us to prove otherwise.
> LOL...I'm sorry, I thought in America it was the burden of the prosecution to prove its case and part of that
> involved proving the evidence is authentic.

Wrong on both counts.
A. I’m not the prosecution. There is no prosecution. Oswald is dead.
B. Evidence can be excepted and it’s up to the jury to determine how much weed to give it even if there is no acceptable evidence trail.

>
> Let me ask you this, Hank:
>
> Was any chain-of-custody forms were ever filled out for the shells currently in evidence ?

You have not shown the DPD used such forms in 1963. You haven’t shown anyone used such forms in 1963.

>
> Were the shells photographed as found, being that there were police photographers present at the scene ?

No, because they were picked up by civilians and turned over to the police. Evidence photos cannot be re-creations. Once the evidence is picked up and removed from the crime scene, it should not be replaced into the crime scene - that is criminology 101. You do not know this? I thought you had claimed experience in law enforcement.

>
> Did the persons who found the shells identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found ?

No, because they were picked up by civilians and turned over to the police. The civilians did not mark the shells in any way. Nor is there an obligation for civilians to mark them in any way for identification later. You do not know this either?

>
> Did the police officer who marked two shells given to him identify ANY of the shells currently in evidence as the shells he marked ?

He waffled on whether he identified them with markings or not at the time he was provided them. You are begging the question by presuming he marked them in your begged question.

Since you appear to not know this, let me quote for you:
— quote —
Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?
Mr. POE. A man, white man.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.
Mr. BALL. And what did he say?
Mr. POE. He said he picked the two hulls up.
Mr. BALL. Did he hand you the hulls?
Mr. POE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any markings on the hulls?
Mr. POE. I couldn't swear to it; no, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the hulls?
Mr. POE. I turned the hulls into the crime lab, which was at the scene.
— unquote —

What part of “I couldn’t swear to it; no, sir” did you not understand?

Like conspiracy theorists everywhere, you pretend the evidence says one thing when it says something else entirely.

>
> Whose Initials appear on two of the shells that do not correspond to anyone known to have been in the chain of custody ?

You tell me. Tell me what you make of this.

>
> Do the shells match in number and manufacturer the bullets that were removed from Off. Tippit’s body ?

Yes, within reason. Some witnesses heard as many as five shots, yet only four shells were recovered. Only four bullets were recovered. The two brands of shells matched the two brands of bullets, but there was not a one to one correspondence. Furthermore additional bullets were recovered from Oswald that matched those two brands. The Warren Commission explained all this.

You don’t know this either?
— quote —
The examination and testimony of the experts enabled the Commission to conclude that five shots may have been fired, even though only four bullets were recovered. Three of the bullets recovered from Tippit's body were manufactured by Winchester-Western, and the fourth bullet by Remington-Peters, but only two of the four discarded cartridge cases found on the lawn at 10th Street and Patton Avenue were of Winchester-Western manufacture.581 Therefore, one cartridge case of this type was not recovered. And though only one bullet of Remington-Peters manufacture was recovered, two empty cartridge cases of that make were retrieved. Therefore, either one bullet of Remington-Peters manufacture is missing or one used Remington-Peters cartridge case, which may have been in the revolver before the shooting, was discarded along with the others as Oswald left the scene. If a bullet is missing, five were fired.
— unquote —

>
> Were the shells originally identified by police as .38 specials ?

This is your argument. But you presented no evidence here to establish that.

>
> Do the shells contain corrosion consistent with having been in a gunbelt or a bullet slide ?

This is your argument. But you presented no evidence here to establish that.

>
> It's all here for you and your asshole pals to cry about:
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells/

I do not rebut links. If you don’t care to present the evidence here, I don’t care to rebut the evidence that is not here.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:50:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Wrong on both counts.

You're often wrong... Particularly here:

[Ben Holmes]

Anyone notice that Chuckles INVARIABLY runs away?

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 08:41:24 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:16:22?PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 12:55:24 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:28:25?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You want to handle this like a court case, then follow the law. The shells are admissible.
>>>
>>>> Who said anything about admissibility ?
>>>
>>>You.
>> Quote & cite the post you're quoting from.

Non-response deleted. Chuckles was unable to admit that he couldn't
do it.

>> But you won't.
>>
>> You're a coward...

Chuckles is happy to help me prove his cowardice.

>>>> Your reading comprehension is lacking.
>>>>
>>>> The question is:
>>>>
>>>> What proof do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>>>
>>>Fringe reset. He just answered you.
>> Quote the answer that actually answers the question.
>>
>> But you can't... you're merely lying again.

Dead silence. Chuckles just got spanked.

>>>> Try to keep up, oh "more knowledgeable" one.
>>>
>>>Try to make a positive case in favor of something instead of asking us to play Fetch the Stick.
>> This is, of course, something *YOU* refuse to do.
>>
>> Why is that, coward?

Well, to be honest, since I already answered the question, I can't
blame the coward for refusing to answer...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 02:51:11 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Your issue, your burden:

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 17:42:03 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

What evidence do I have that you're a liar and a coward?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 02:14:51 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 4:56:44?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> What evidence do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>
>Still waiting to see your evidence, WC supporters.

They can't.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:28:25 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You want to handle this like a court case, then follow the law. The shells are admissible.
> Who said anything about admissibility ?

> Your reading comprehension is lacking.
>
> The question is:
>

> What proof do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?

Shifting the burden of proof. I’ve cited the law on this frequently enough that you should know it by now. Let me summarize those points here:
1. Even when the evidence trail is lacking, the evidence is admissible. The jury gets to decide how much weight to put on it.
2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that businesses and government offices are doing their due diligence regarding the evidence presented in court. You need to present evidence that these are not the same shells, not simply presume it then ask us to disprove it.

>
> Try to keep up, oh "more knowledgeable" one.

I’m trying, but I can’t keep up with your ignorance of the law and repeated logical fallacies.

[Bud]

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:56:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 08:41:24 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:16:22?PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 12:55:24 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> >> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:28:25?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> You want to handle this like a court case, then follow the law. The shells are admissible.
> >>>
> >>>> Who said anything about admissibility ?
> >>>
> >>>You.
> >> Quote & cite the post you're quoting from.
> Non-response deleted.

The troll is in full flight as usual.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:50:13 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 5:17:54 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > >
> > > You need to provide the evidence the evidence is not legit, not just assume it and ask us to prove otherwise.
> > LOL...I'm sorry, I thought in America it was the burden of the prosecution to prove its case and part of that
> > involved proving the evidence is authentic.
>
> Wrong on both counts.
> A. I’m not the prosecution. There is no prosecution. Oswald is dead.
> B. Evidence can be excepted and it’s up to the jury to determine how much weed to give it even if there is no acceptable evidence trail.

Hilarious. So much for dictating my responses. The above should read:
B. Evidence can be admissible and it’s up to the jury to determine how much weight to give it even if there is no acceptable evidence trail.

There’s another point I overlooked initially:
C. There goes your double standard again! On the one hand, above you’re claiming the prosecution has certain responsibilities, but earlier in this thread, you denied this had anything to do with court admissibility:
— quote —

> You want to handle this like a court case, then follow the law. The shells are admissible.
Who said anything about admissibility ?

— unquote —

If we’re not talking court standards, which you both argue for and deny, what standards are we utilizing? Just any old thing you can think up?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:57:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>Shifting the burden of proof.

You said it, I've cited it, it's your burden:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:59:51 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]