info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Questions for the self-proclaimed "more knowledgeable one", Hank Sienzant: Question # 11
87 views
Skip to first unread message
Gil Jesus
Oct 25, 2023, 5:18:03 AM10/25/23
to
There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and give to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe. Poe reportedly gave the shells to Sgt. Pete Barnes of the Crime Lab.
Poe was interviewed by the FBI and told them that, "he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes". ( 24 H 414-415 )
During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but felt the two Western shells were the two shells he marked.
The FBI designation for these shells was Q-75 and Q-77. ( 7 H 69 )
Sgt. Pete Barnes testified that he was the one who received the shells from Poe. Barnes identified the shells that Poe gave him as FBI #s Q-74 and Q-75. ( 7 H 275 )
QUESTION # 11: Which was the shell in the chain of custody between Benavides, Poe and Barnes, Q-74 or Q-77 ?
Please cite evidence for your choice and not opinion.
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and give to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe. Poe reportedly gave the shells to Sgt. Pete Barnes of the Crime Lab.
Poe was interviewed by the FBI and told them that, "he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes". ( 24 H 414-415 )
During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but felt the two Western shells were the two shells he marked.
The FBI designation for these shells was Q-75 and Q-77. ( 7 H 69 )
Sgt. Pete Barnes testified that he was the one who received the shells from Poe. Barnes identified the shells that Poe gave him as FBI #s Q-74 and Q-75. ( 7 H 275 )
QUESTION # 11: Which was the shell in the chain of custody between Benavides, Poe and Barnes, Q-74 or Q-77 ?
Please cite evidence for your choice and not opinion.
John Corbett
Oct 25, 2023, 7:35:40 AM10/25/23
to
All four shells in evidence were positively matched to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all
other weapons in the world. That is what matters. Being a CT, you continue to look at the wrong
things incorrectly.
Ben Holmes
Oct 25, 2023, 9:06:37 AM10/25/23
to
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:35:38 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:18:03?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
>> one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>>
>> It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>>
>> Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and give to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe. Poe reportedly gave the shells to Sgt. Pete Barnes of the Crime Lab.
>>
>> Poe was interviewed by the FBI and told them that, "he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes". ( 24 H 414-415 )
>>
>> During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but felt the two Western shells were the two shells he marked.
>> The FBI designation for these shells was Q-75 and Q-77. ( 7 H 69 )
>>
>> Sgt. Pete Barnes testified that he was the one who received the shells from Poe. Barnes identified the shells that Poe gave him as FBI #s Q-74 and Q-75. ( 7 H 275 )
>>
>> QUESTION # 11: Which was the shell in the chain of custody between Benavides, Poe and Barnes, Q-74 or Q-77 ?
>>
>> Please cite evidence for your choice and not opinion.
>
>Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, your questions are irrelevant and immaterial.
Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, you have no basis
on which to claim Oswald guilty of jaywalking.
>All four shells in evidence were positively matched to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all
>other weapons in the world. That is what matters. Being a CT, you continue to look at the wrong
>things incorrectly.
Do you understand the purpose behind chain of custody?
Clearly not.
Notice folks, that Corbutt ran again... He's not helping out Huckster
at all.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:18:03?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
>> one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>>
>> It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>>
>> Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and give to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe. Poe reportedly gave the shells to Sgt. Pete Barnes of the Crime Lab.
>>
>> Poe was interviewed by the FBI and told them that, "he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes". ( 24 H 414-415 )
>>
>> During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but felt the two Western shells were the two shells he marked.
>> The FBI designation for these shells was Q-75 and Q-77. ( 7 H 69 )
>>
>> Sgt. Pete Barnes testified that he was the one who received the shells from Poe. Barnes identified the shells that Poe gave him as FBI #s Q-74 and Q-75. ( 7 H 275 )
>>
>> QUESTION # 11: Which was the shell in the chain of custody between Benavides, Poe and Barnes, Q-74 or Q-77 ?
>>
>> Please cite evidence for your choice and not opinion.
>
>Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, your questions are irrelevant and immaterial.
on which to claim Oswald guilty of jaywalking.
>All four shells in evidence were positively matched to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all
>other weapons in the world. That is what matters. Being a CT, you continue to look at the wrong
>things incorrectly.
Clearly not.
Notice folks, that Corbutt ran again... He's not helping out Huckster
at all.
Gil Jesus
Oct 25, 2023, 11:53:07 AM10/25/23
to
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:35:40 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, your questions are irrelevant and immaterial.
And yet, you can't pass one by without responding.
> Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, your questions are irrelevant and immaterial.
Who said anything about a criminal trial ?
I'm simply asking questions of Hank, who bragged he was more knowledgeable than me.
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:44:55 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> > Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody!
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:43:41 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CuT27J6SqA0/m/sLvxmEqnAwAJ
I'd like to know how knowledgeable he is. I have questions, maybe he can answer them.
Aren't you the asshole who said there was documents covering ALL of the evidence in this case ?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
Show us the documentation for the chain of custody of the Benavides shells so we can see which shell, Q-74 or Q-77, was the one he found.
John Corbett
Oct 25, 2023, 4:33:41 PM10/25/23
to
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:53:07 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:35:40 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, your questions are irrelevant and immaterial.
> And yet, you can't pass one by without responding.
>
To point out how irrelevant and immaterial your questions are.
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:35:40 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, your questions are irrelevant and immaterial.
> And yet, you can't pass one by without responding.
>
> Who said anything about a criminal trial ?
>
> I'm simply asking questions of Hank, who bragged he was more knowledgeable than me.
That's not much to brag about, but he is.
> I'm simply asking questions of Hank, who bragged he was more knowledgeable than me.
Gil Jesus
Oct 26, 2023, 5:28:55 AM10/26/23
to
The evidence determined that was a lie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7uLMSs4KQ
Says the guy who asked, "Why do you keep citing an FBI report that doesn't say JFK and JBC were hit by separate shots ? The highlighted passage does not conflict with the SBT."
The evidence determined that was a lie:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4
Says the guy who said, "Gil is speculating as to why Oswald went to Irving. He has no evidence to back up his speculation."
The evidence determined that was a lie:
https://gil-jesus.com/the-real-reason-oswald-went-to-irving-on-11-21/
Says the guy who has no recall:
Gil: When I don't post for a few days, you cry, "Where's Gil " ?
Corbett: I don't recall ever writing that. I don't recall ever thinking that.
The evidence determined that was a lie:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/BI_ZOaLh-30/m/29tla-YeCQAJ
Funny how the guy who has been proven to have little knowledge time and time again can be an expert on who has more knowledge than whom.
ROFLMAO
( 20 questions up there, some of them simple "yes or no" questions, and he still hasn't answered any )
Gil Jesus
Oct 26, 2023, 5:47:20 AM10/26/23
to
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:33:41 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.
But the chain of custody documentation is created AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS FIRST HANDLED.
https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm#:~:text=The%20chain%20of%20custody%20is%20established%20whenever%20an%20investigator%20takes,from%20another%20officer%20or%20detective.
Why can't you get that through your cement head ?
Whether or not there is a trial has nothing to do with the chain of custody documentation.
It may not be REQUIRED to be placed IN EVIDENCE until a trial, but it should still EXIST.
If evidence was collected, there should be a record.
Where is it ?
John Corbett
Oct 26, 2023, 7:45:16 AM10/26/23
to
in 1963. You assume these current rules for DNA evidence were applicable to all evidence
collection in 1963. You assume the DPD hadn't done any documentation at the time. You
assume such documentation should have been filed even after Oswald's death. You assume it
wasn't. You assume it should have been retained indefinitely. You assume it wasn't. That is a
shitload of assumptions regarding things neither you nor I know the answers to. Your
assumptions are no reason any intelligent person should disregard the available evidence in
determining the truth of the JFK assassination. That available evidence leaves no doubt that
Oswald was the assassin and a cop killer. That is the simple truth that you don't want to accept
so you invent these bogus excuses for dismissing any and all evidence that leads to that
conclusion.
Ben Holmes
Oct 26, 2023, 9:18:37 AM10/26/23
to
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:33:40 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:53:07?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
implied claim that they really ARE irrelevant.
>> Who said anything about a criminal trial ?
>
>You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.
Good of you to admit that no-one spoke of a criminal trial. *YOUR*
presumptions are *YOUR* problem, not Gil's.
>> I'm simply asking questions of Hank, who bragged he was more knowledgeable than me.
>
>That's not much to brag about, but he is.
He's clearly afraid of proving it. And *YOUR* opinion is worthless.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:53:07?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:35:40?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> > Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, your questions are irrelevant and immaterial.
>> And yet, you can't pass one by without responding.
>>
>To point out how irrelevant and immaterial your questions are.
In your opinion - you forgot to add that. Yet you can't support your
>> > Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, your questions are irrelevant and immaterial.
>> And yet, you can't pass one by without responding.
>>
>To point out how irrelevant and immaterial your questions are.
implied claim that they really ARE irrelevant.
>> Who said anything about a criminal trial ?
>
>You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.
presumptions are *YOUR* problem, not Gil's.
>> I'm simply asking questions of Hank, who bragged he was more knowledgeable than me.
>
>That's not much to brag about, but he is.
Ben Holmes
Oct 26, 2023, 9:18:37 AM10/26/23
to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 04:45:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:47:20?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The truth is ALWAYS the best someone can do.
Start citing for your wacky beliefs, Corbutt... for until you do, you
won't convince anyone.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:47:20?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:33:41?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.
>> But the chain of custody documentation is created AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS FIRST HANDLED.
>> https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm#:~:text=The%20chain%20of%20custody%20is%20established%20whenever%20an%20investigator%20takes,from%20another%20officer%20or%20detective.
>>
>> Why can't you get that through your cement head ?
>>
>> Whether or not there is a trial has nothing to do with the chain of custody documentation.
>> It may not be REQUIRED to be placed IN EVIDENCE until a trial, but it should still EXIST.
>> If evidence was collected, there should be a record.
>> Where is it ?
>
>That's the best you can do, Gil? ...
>>> You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.
>> But the chain of custody documentation is created AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS FIRST HANDLED.
>> https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm#:~:text=The%20chain%20of%20custody%20is%20established%20whenever%20an%20investigator%20takes,from%20another%20officer%20or%20detective.
>>
>> Why can't you get that through your cement head ?
>>
>> Whether or not there is a trial has nothing to do with the chain of custody documentation.
>> It may not be REQUIRED to be placed IN EVIDENCE until a trial, but it should still EXIST.
>> If evidence was collected, there should be a record.
>> Where is it ?
>
The truth is ALWAYS the best someone can do.
Start citing for your wacky beliefs, Corbutt... for until you do, you
won't convince anyone.
Gil Jesus
Oct 26, 2023, 11:46:27 AM10/26/23
to
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 7:45:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:47:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:33:41 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.
> > But the chain of custody documentation is created AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS FIRST HANDLED.
> > https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm#:~:text=The%20chain%20of%20custody%20is%20established%20whenever%20an%20investigator%20takes,from%20another%20officer%20or%20detective.
> >
> > Why can't you get that through your cement head ?
> >
> > Whether or not there is a trial has nothing to do with the chain of custody documentation.
> > It may not be REQUIRED to be placed IN EVIDENCE until a trial, but it should still EXIST.
> > If evidence was collected, there should be a record.
> > Where is it ?
> That's the best you can do, Gil?
OK John, YOU'RE the expert on Chain of Custody.
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:47:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:33:41 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.
> > But the chain of custody documentation is created AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS FIRST HANDLED.
> > https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm#:~:text=The%20chain%20of%20custody%20is%20established%20whenever%20an%20investigator%20takes,from%20another%20officer%20or%20detective.
> >
> > Why can't you get that through your cement head ?
> >
> > Whether or not there is a trial has nothing to do with the chain of custody documentation.
> > It may not be REQUIRED to be placed IN EVIDENCE until a trial, but it should still EXIST.
> > If evidence was collected, there should be a record.
> > Where is it ?
> That's the best you can do, Gil?
Take us through the process of implimentation of the Chain of Custody Form from the crime scene to the trial.
Who initiates it and when and where is it initiated ?
I know what I learned in my criminal justice classes and my experiences as a cop, but I
( and I'm sure all the lurkers ) want to hear the process from a REAL expert like you.
Enlighten us.
Gil Jesus
Oct 26, 2023, 12:01:06 PM10/26/23
to
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:18:37 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> The truth is ALWAYS the best someone can do.
>
>
> Start citing for your wacky beliefs, Corbutt... for until you do, you won't convince anyone.
Good point.
>
> The truth is ALWAYS the best someone can do.
>
>
> Start citing for your wacky beliefs, Corbutt... for until you do, you won't convince anyone.
First he said there was chain-of-custody documentation for ALL the evidence in the case.
Then, when he found out that wasn't true, he made up the excuse that the documentation wasn't needed until the trial
and because there was no trial, the documentation was never made.
ALL of the physical evidence in this case was found between the time of the assassination and 3:20 pm on Saturday afternoon.
I asked him how did they know at that time that they didn't need the documentation for ANY of the evidence because they weren't going to go to trial ?
He never answered.
Because the answer is that the cops knew that Oswald wasn't going to go to trial the second he was arrested and the proof of that is that they
never made up the chain-of-custody forms they needed for trial.
Can you feel that ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1MgDvXzgl8
ROFLMAO
Bud
Oct 26, 2023, 12:19:03 PM10/26/23
to
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:46:27 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 7:45:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:47:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:33:41 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.
> > > But the chain of custody documentation is created AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS FIRST HANDLED.
> > > https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm#:~:text=The%20chain%20of%20custody%20is%20established%20whenever%20an%20investigator%20takes,from%20another%20officer%20or%20detective.
> > >
> > > Why can't you get that through your cement head ?
> > >
> > > Whether or not there is a trial has nothing to do with the chain of custody documentation.
> > > It may not be REQUIRED to be placed IN EVIDENCE until a trial, but it should still EXIST.
> > > If evidence was collected, there should be a record.
> > > Where is it ?
> > That's the best you can do, Gil?
> OK John, YOU'RE the expert on Chain of Custody.
> Take us through the process of implimentation of the Chain of Custody Form from the crime scene to the trial.
> Who initiates it and when and where is it initiated ?
Shift that burden. This is your issue, Gil.
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 7:45:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:47:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:33:41 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.
> > > But the chain of custody documentation is created AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS FIRST HANDLED.
> > > https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm#:~:text=The%20chain%20of%20custody%20is%20established%20whenever%20an%20investigator%20takes,from%20another%20officer%20or%20detective.
> > >
> > > Why can't you get that through your cement head ?
> > >
> > > Whether or not there is a trial has nothing to do with the chain of custody documentation.
> > > It may not be REQUIRED to be placed IN EVIDENCE until a trial, but it should still EXIST.
> > > If evidence was collected, there should be a record.
> > > Where is it ?
> > That's the best you can do, Gil?
> OK John, YOU'RE the expert on Chain of Custody.
> Take us through the process of implimentation of the Chain of Custody Form from the crime scene to the trial.
> Who initiates it and when and where is it initiated ?
Didn`t you claim, but never support, that it is the first person to lay eyes on the evidence?
Ben Holmes
Oct 26, 2023, 1:25:35 PM10/26/23
to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 09:19:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Bud
Oct 26, 2023, 5:57:48 PM10/26/23
to
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:18:03 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
> one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>
> It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
> Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and give to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe. Poe reportedly gave the shells to Sgt. Pete Barnes of the Crime Lab.
>
> Poe was interviewed by the FBI and told them that, "he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes". ( 24 H 414-415 )
>
> During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but felt the two Western shells were the two shells he marked.
> The FBI designation for these shells was Q-75 and Q-77. ( 7 H 69 )
Poe wasn`t sure. NEXT!
> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
> one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>
> It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
> Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and give to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe. Poe reportedly gave the shells to Sgt. Pete Barnes of the Crime Lab.
>
> Poe was interviewed by the FBI and told them that, "he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes". ( 24 H 414-415 )
>
> During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but felt the two Western shells were the two shells he marked.
> The FBI designation for these shells was Q-75 and Q-77. ( 7 H 69 )
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 9:18:26 AM10/27/23
to
0 new messages