Which of the following people do you consider to be innocent of murder
1. John Wilkes Booth?
2. Charles Whitman?
3. Eric Harris?
4. Dylan Klebold?
5. Mohammed Atta?
6. Seung-Hui Cho?
7. Adam Lanza?
8. Salvador Ramos.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:35:54 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which of the following people do you consider to be innocent of murder
1. John Wilkes Booth?
2. Charles Whitman?
3. Eric Harris?
4. Dylan Klebold?
5. Mohammed Atta?
6. Seung-Hui Cho?
7. Adam Lanza?
8. Salvador Ramos.Which ones were arrested ?
Which ones were placed in lineups where the fillers did not resemble them or the descriptions made by witnesses ?
Which ones were questioned without benefit of counsel ?
Which ones were denied counsel by the judge ?
Which ones were killed in police custody ?
Which ones used murder weapons that when tested couldn't hit anything it was aimed at ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the wounds to the victims ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the autopsy photographs of the victims ?
Which murders had key witneses ignored and the statements of others altered ?
Which murders had key pieces of evidence revised ?
Answer these questions and you'll have my answer.
And stop trying to make it seem like I think every murderer is innocent.
I put my life on the line to put society's scum away.
Did you ?
You insulting, ignorant son-of-a-bitch.
I have a problem with the evidence in this case.
And you can shove it up your ass.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:03:16 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:35:54 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which of the following people do you consider to be innocent of murder
1. John Wilkes Booth?
2. Charles Whitman?
3. Eric Harris?
4. Dylan Klebold?
5. Mohammed Atta?
6. Seung-Hui Cho?
7. Adam Lanza?
8. Salvador Ramos.Which ones were arrested ?
Which ones were placed in lineups where the fillers did not resemble them or the descriptions made by witnesses ?
Which ones were questioned without benefit of counsel ?
Which ones were denied counsel by the judge ?
Which ones were killed in police custody ?
Which ones used murder weapons that when tested couldn't hit anything it was aimed at ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the wounds to the victims ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the autopsy photographs of the victims ?
Which murders had key witneses ignored and the statements of others altered ?
Which murders had key pieces of evidence revised ?
Answer these questions and you'll have my answer.So it never was about Oswald not being convicted in a trial. Why didn`t you just say so?
And stop trying to make it seem like I think every murderer is innocent.Please.
I put my life on the line to put society's scum away.
Did you ?
You insulting, ignorant son-of-a-bitch.
I have a problem with the evidence in this case.You have a problem with thinking, a problem with reasoning. We offer you help in these areas that you are clearly deficient in and you don`t seem to appreciate it.
And you can shove it up your ass.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:35:54 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which of the following people do you consider to be innocent of murder
1. John Wilkes Booth?
2. Charles Whitman?
3. Eric Harris?
4. Dylan Klebold?
5. Mohammed Atta?
6. Seung-Hui Cho?
7. Adam Lanza?
8. Salvador Ramos.Which ones were arrested ?
Which ones were placed in lineups where the fillers did not resemble them or the descriptions made by witnesses ?
Which ones were questioned without benefit of counsel ?
Which ones were denied counsel by the judge ?
Which ones were killed in police custody ?
Which ones used murder weapons that when tested couldn't hit anything it was aimed at ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the wounds to the victims ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the autopsy photographs of the victims ?
Which murders had key witneses ignored and the statements of others altered ?
Which murders had key pieces of evidence revised ?
Answer these questions and you'll have my answer.
And stop trying to make it seem like I think every murderer is innocent.
I put my life on the line to put society's scum away.
Did you ?
You insulting, ignorant son-of-a-bitch.
I have a problem with the evidence in this case.
And you can shove it up your ass.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:27:56 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:03:16 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:35:54 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which of the following people do you consider to be innocent of murder
1. John Wilkes Booth?
2. Charles Whitman?
3. Eric Harris?
4. Dylan Klebold?
5. Mohammed Atta?
6. Seung-Hui Cho?
7. Adam Lanza?
8. Salvador Ramos.Which ones were arrested ?
Which ones were placed in lineups where the fillers did not resemble them or the descriptions made by witnesses ?
Which ones were questioned without benefit of counsel ?
Which ones were denied counsel by the judge ?
Which ones were killed in police custody ?
Which ones used murder weapons that when tested couldn't hit anything it was aimed at ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the wounds to the victims ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the autopsy photographs of the victims ?
Which murders had key witneses ignored and the statements of others altered ?
Which murders had key pieces of evidence revised ?
Answer these questions and you'll have my answer.So it never was about Oswald not being convicted in a trial. Why didn`t you just say so?
And stop trying to make it seem like I think every murderer is innocent. I put my life on the line to put society's scum away.Please.
Did you ?
You insulting, ignorant son-of-a-bitch.
Nouveau definition de le mot "help"!I have a problem with the evidence in this case.You have a problem with thinking, a problem with reasoning. We offer you help in these areas that you are clearly deficient in and you don`t seem to appreciate it.
And you can shove it up your ass.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:44:55 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:27:56 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:03:16 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:35:54 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which of the following people do you consider to be innocent of murder
1. John Wilkes Booth?
2. Charles Whitman?
3. Eric Harris?
4. Dylan Klebold?
5. Mohammed Atta?
6. Seung-Hui Cho?
7. Adam Lanza?
8. Salvador Ramos.Which ones were arrested ?
Which ones were placed in lineups where the fillers did not resemble them or the descriptions made by witnesses ?
Which ones were questioned without benefit of counsel ?
Which ones were denied counsel by the judge ?
Which ones were killed in police custody ?
Which ones used murder weapons that when tested couldn't hit anything it was aimed at ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the wounds to the victims ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the autopsy photographs of the victims ?
Which murders had key witneses ignored and the statements of others altered ?
Which murders had key pieces of evidence revised ?
Answer these questions and you'll have my answer.So it never was about Oswald not being convicted in a trial. Why didn`t you just say so?
And stop trying to make it seem like I think every murderer is innocent.Please.
I put my life on the line to put society's scum away.
Did you ?
You insulting, ignorant son-of-a-bitch.
To give assistance; aid.Nouveau definition de le mot "help"!I have a problem with the evidence in this case.You have a problem with thinking, a problem with reasoning. We offer you help in these areas that you are clearly deficient in and you don`t seem to appreciate it.
And you can shove it up your ass.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 11:04:39 PM UTC+1, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:44:55 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:27:56 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:03:16 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:35:54 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which of the following people do you consider to be innocent of murder
1. John Wilkes Booth?
2. Charles Whitman?
3. Eric Harris?
4. Dylan Klebold?
5. Mohammed Atta?
6. Seung-Hui Cho?
7. Adam Lanza?
8. Salvador Ramos.Which ones were arrested ?
Which ones were placed in lineups where the fillers did not resemble them or the descriptions made by witnesses ?
Which ones were questioned without benefit of counsel ?
Which ones were denied counsel by the judge ?
Which ones were killed in police custody ?
Which ones used murder weapons that when tested couldn't hit anything it was aimed at ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the wounds to the victims ? Which murders had inconsistencies in the autopsy photographs of the victims ?
Which murders had key witneses ignored and the statements of others altered ?
Which murders had key pieces of evidence revised ?
Answer these questions and you'll have my answer.So it never was about Oswald not being convicted in a trial. Why didn`t you just say so?
And stop trying to make it seem like I think every murderer is innocent.Please.
I put my life on the line to put society's scum away.
Did you ?
You insulting, ignorant son-of-a-bitch.
Love seeing lone nutter bastards pushed into a corner and see them squirm and try to wiggle themselves out of it...To give assistance; aid.Nouveau definition de le mot "help"!I have a problem with the evidence in this case.You have a problem with thinking, a problem with reasoning. We offer you help in these areas that you are clearly deficient in and you don`t seem to appreciate it.
And you can shove it up your ass.
You pathetic twats.
Another assclown who can't answer simple questions weighs in.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:03:16?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:35:54?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which of the following people do you consider to be innocent of murderWhich ones were arrested ?
1. John Wilkes Booth?
2. Charles Whitman?
3. Eric Harris?
4. Dylan Klebold?
5. Mohammed Atta?
6. Seung-Hui Cho?
7. Adam Lanza?
8. Salvador Ramos.
Which ones were placed in lineups where the fillers did not resemble them or the descriptions made by witnesses ?
Which ones were questioned without benefit of counsel ?
Which ones were denied counsel by the judge ?
Which ones were killed in police custody ?
Which ones used murder weapons that when tested couldn't hit anything it was aimed at ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the wounds to the victims ?
Which murders had inconsistencies in the autopsy photographs of the victims ?
Which murders had key witneses ignored and the statements of others altered ?
Which murders had key pieces of evidence revised ?
Answer these questions and you'll have my answer.
And stop trying to make it seem like I think every murderer is innocent.
I put my life on the line to put society's scum away.
Did you ?
You insulting, ignorant son-of-a-bitch.
I have a problem with the evidence in this case.
And you can shove it up your ass.
Gil, you think it is significant that there isn't a public record of the forms >documenting the chain of custody for various pieces of evidence in the
JFK assassination.
Why would you think there should be a public record of
those forms?
Where do you suppose those records should be?
Have you
looked there to see if the records are there?
Do you think such records
are stored indefinitely?
Do you think that such records are kept for cases
that don't go to trial?
In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained. >I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some >where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where
do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
Answer that
and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation
is for the JFK evidence.
If you really are obsessed with knowing what became of the chain of custody >paper trail, why don't you look into it?
Why do you keep pestering people who
know it's not important...
If you're going to...
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:22:32 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
Where do you suppose those records should be?In the public record.
Have you looked there to see if the records are there?Already answered in another thread.
Do you think such records are stored indefinitely?All the records in this case are stored indefinitely. It's called the National Archives.
Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?Already answered twice in two different threads.
In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.In what they call, "case files".
I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
Answer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.In this case, the "case files" are the Warren Commission files.
You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.
Now you're:
a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
b.) you're speculating that the forms exist but are hidden away in some secret location apart from the other forms in this case.
Yet, there's no evidence to support either of those wild speculations.
The point is that you have a reputation of making statements which are not true, and which you cannot prove.
You ask the silliest questions and even when you're given the answers, you can't accept them. You keep asking them over and over again.
You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.
One time is an error, but when you intentionally tell the same falsehoods over and over again after being shown the truth, that makes you a liar.
This issue is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned. You want keep beating it, that's up to you, but like a dead horse, it's not going anywhere.
The bottom line is that:
You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
Claims, in the end, you could not prove.
YOU LOSE.
And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.
END OF STORY.
Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?
Where do you suppose those records should be?
Have you looked there to see if the records are there?
Do you think such records are stored indefinitely?
Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?
are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.
I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where
do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
Answer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:22:32 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
Where do you suppose those records should be?In the public record.
Have you looked there to see if the records are there?Already answered in another thread.
Do you think such records are stored indefinitely?All the records in this case are stored indefinitely. It's called the National Archives.
Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?
Already answered twice in two different threads.
In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.In what they call, "case files".
I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
Answer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.In this case, the "case files" are the Warren Commission files.
You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.
Now you're:
a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
b.) you're speculating that the forms exist but are hidden away in some secret location apart from the other forms in this case.
Yet, there's no evidence to support either of those wild speculations.
The point is that you have a reputation of making statements which are not true, and which you cannot prove.
You ask the silliest questions and even when you're given the answers, you can't accept them. You keep asking them over and over again.
You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.
One time is an error, but when you intentionally tell the same falsehoods over and over again after being shown the truth, that makes you a liar.
This issue is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned.
You want keep beating it, that's up to you, but like a dead horse, it's not going anywhere.
The bottom line is that:
You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
Claims, in the end, you could not prove.
YOU LOSE.
And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.
END OF STORY.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:22:32?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?
Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
Where do you suppose those records should be?
In the public record.
Have you looked there to see if the records are there?
Already answered in another thread.
Do you think such records are stored indefinitely?
All the records in this case are stored indefinitely. It's called the National Archives.
Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?
Already answered twice in two different threads.
In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.
I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some >> where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where
do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
In what they call, "case files".
Answer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.
In this case, the "case files" are the Warren Commission files.
You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.
Now you're:
a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
b.) you're speculating that the forms exist but are hidden away in some secret location apart from the other forms in this case.
Yet, there's no evidence to support either of those wild speculations.
The point is that you have a reputation of making statements which are not true, and which you cannot prove.
You ask the silliest questions and even when you're given the answers, you can't accept them. You keep asking them over and over again.
You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.
One time is an error, but when you intentionally tell the same falsehoods over and over again after being shown the truth, that makes you a liar.
This issue is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned. You want keep beating it, that's up to you, but like a dead horse, it's not going anywhere.
The bottom line is that:
You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
Claims, in the end, you could not prove.
YOU LOSE.
And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.
END OF STORY.
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:26:28?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:22:32?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
Where do you suppose those records should be?In the public record.
Could you be a bit more specific?
If it is routine to store these records indefinitely for cases
that don't go to trial, tell us where those records should be. If you don't know where those
records should be, you have no idea whether they are there or not.
Have you looked there to see if the records are there?Already answered in another thread.
The standard online copout when one doesn't have an answer. "I already posted it".
Do you think such records are stored indefinitely?All the records in this case are stored indefinitely. It's called the National Archives.
At the time, this was a state crime. The forms would have been produced by local officials
and it would have been up to them to store them if necessary.
Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?
Already answered twice in two different threads.
Another copout.
In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.
I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some >>> where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where >>> do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases? >> In what they call, "case files".
So tell us where to look for the records in those "case files".
Answer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.In this case, the "case files" are the Warren Commission files.
Since the Warren Commission was a fact finding body ...
You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.
Once again, you twist my words.
Now you're:
a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
I am not speculating anything.
b.) you're speculating that the forms exist but are hidden away in some secret location apart from the other forms in this case.
Again, I'm not speculating anything.
Yet, there's no evidence to support either of those wild speculations.The wild speculations are all yours.
The point is that you have a reputation of making statements which are not true, and which you cannot prove.
You ask the silliest questions and even when you're given the answers, you can't accept them. You keep asking them over and over again.
So you think...
You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.
One time is an error, but when you intentionally tell the same falsehoods over and over again after being shown the truth, that makes you a liar.
This issue is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned.
Gil is signaling he is about to bail out of this thread because he can't stand having his
assertions subjected to critical questioning.
You want keep beating it, that's up to you, but like a dead horse, it's not going anywhere.
You and the rest of the conspiracy hobbyists have gone nowhere in 60 years ...
The bottom line is that:
You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
Again you twist my words.
Claims, in the end, you could not prove.
You are the one claiming documentation is missing that should be there. You have failed badly
to prove that assertion.
YOU LOSE.
Gil declares victory prior to his retreat.
And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.
Unable to take the heat, Gil leaves the kitchen. One of his wiser moves.
END OF STORY.
Yes it is. Until Gil wants to bring up his bogus claim in another thread.
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:26:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Once again, you twist my words.
You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
There is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence. There is DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE.
Who found it. Whom they gave it to. Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:26:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:22:32 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:Could you be a bit more specific? If it is routine to store these records indefinitely for cases
Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
Where do you suppose those records should be?In the public record.
that don't go to trial, tell us where those records should be. If you don't know where those
records should be, you have no idea whether they are there or not.
The standard online copout when one doesn't have an answer. "I already posted it".Have you looked there to see if the records are there?Already answered in another thread.
At the time, this was a state crime. The forms would have been produced by local officialsDo you think such records are stored indefinitely?All the records in this case are stored indefinitely. It's called the National Archives.
and it would have been up to them to store them if necessary.
Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?
Already answered twice in two different threads.Another copout.
In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure thereSo tell us where to look for the records in those "case files".
are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.In what they call, "case files".
I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some
where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
Since the Warren Commission was a fact finding body and not a criminal trial, they did notAnswer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.In this case, the "case files" are the Warren Commission files.
require the chain-of-custody forms. There was no reason for them to store something they
never received. They used testimony from the investigators to establish the validity of the
evidence.
You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody. I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.Once again, you twist my words. I said that had the case gone to trial, the DPD and the
prosecutors would have produced them. You make the assumption that those documents
would have been prepared at the time the evidence was gathered. You have no idea if that
was the normal routine or not. The documentation would not have been required until the
case went to trial. It is rather silly to assume it would have been done during the first few
days following the assassination. That's why I am asking you all these questions. I am asking
you establish what the normal routine was for creating and storing the documentation for
cases that never went to trial. In absence of your ability to do that, it seems to me you are just
making assumptions as to what documentation we should have and where it should be. All
you can give us is the vague "public record".
Now you're:I am not speculating anything. I'm not the one pretending to know what the normal routine
a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
would be. You are. I'm asking you to establish that something is missing that should be there.
Until you can establish what the normal routine was at the time and that the DPD and/or the
prosecutor's office did not follow that routine, you have nothing but another empty excuse to
disregard the evidence that proves the guilt of your client.
b.) you're speculating that the forms exist but are hidden away in some secret location apart from the other forms in this case.Again, I'm not speculating anything. I don't know if they would have produced those forms
immediately after the evidence is gathered or done so later in preparation for the trial. I don't
pretend to know what the normal routine was. You are the one claiming there is something
missing that should be there. It is up to you to establish that the DPD and prosecutor's office
failed to do something they were required to do. It seems rather silly to me to believe that in the
most important criminal case in the history of Dallas, the cops and prosecutors would have
failed to do the most basic things to validate the evidence.
Yet, there's no evidence to support either of those wild speculations.
The wild speculations are all yours.
The point is that you have a reputation of making statements which are not true, and which you cannot prove.Irony alert. You are the one claiming the DPD failed to follow standard procedures yet you offer
no proof of what those standard procedures would have been. All you offer are your baseless
assertions. I have asked you basic questions regarding how and when these documents should
have been produced and where and how they would be stored once they were no longer needed.
You dodged each an every question.
You ask the silliest questions and even when you're given the answers, you can't accept them. You keep asking them over and over again.So you think it is silly of me to ask you to establish what the normal routine was for the
creation and filing of these documents.
You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.You have been repeating the same falsehoods in the 15 years I have participated in this forum
and probably long before that.
One time is an error, but when you intentionally tell the same falsehoods over and over again after being shown the truth, that makes you a liar.
This issue is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned.Gil is signaling he is about to bail out of this thread because he can't stand having his
assertions subjected to critical questioning.
You want keep beating it, that's up to you, but like a dead horse, it's not going anywhere.You and the rest of the conspiracy hobbyists have gone nowhere in 60 years and will continue
on your futile snipe hunt until the plant you on the other side of the grass.
The bottom line is that:Again you twist my words. I'm saying it is ridiculous to believe the DPD and prosecutors would
You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
not have produced that documentation had the case gone to trial.
Claims, in the end, you could not prove.You are the one claiming documentation is missing that should be there. You have failed badly
to prove that assertion.
YOU LOSE.
Gil declares victory prior to his retreat.
And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.Unable to take the heat, Gil leaves the kitchen. One of his wiser moves.
END OF STORY.
Yes it is. Until Gil wants to bring up his bogus claim in another thread.
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:26:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Here are transcripts of the Jack Ruby trial including motions/statements. I'll guess that any "forms" that they used would show up here, would be mentioned? e.g,. re his revolver, et cetera. But I don't see any mention of them. I searched for "forms" and
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:22:32 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:Could you be a bit more specific? If it is routine to store these records indefinitely for cases
Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
Where do you suppose those records should be?In the public record.
that don't go to trial, tell us where those records should be. If you don't know where those
records should be, you have no idea whether they are there or not.
The standard online copout when one doesn't have an answer. "I already posted it".Have you looked there to see if the records are there?Already answered in another thread.
At the time, this was a state crime. The forms would have been produced by local officialsDo you think such records are stored indefinitely?All the records in this case are stored indefinitely. It's called the National Archives.
and it would have been up to them to store them if necessary.
Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?
Already answered twice in two different threads.Another copout.
In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure thereSo tell us where to look for the records in those "case files".
are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.In what they call, "case files".
I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some
where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
Since the Warren Commission was a fact finding body and not a criminal trial, they did notAnswer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.In this case, the "case files" are the Warren Commission files.
require the chain-of-custody forms. There was no reason for them to store something they
never received. They used testimony from the investigators to establish the validity of the
evidence.
You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody. I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.Once again, you twist my words. I said that had the case gone to trial, the DPD and the
prosecutors would have produced them. You make the assumption that those documents
would have been prepared at the time the evidence was gathered. You have no idea if that
was the normal routine or not. The documentation would not have been required until the
case went to trial. It is rather silly to assume it would have been done during the first few
days following the assassination. That's why I am asking you all these questions. I am asking
you establish what the normal routine was for creating and storing the documentation for
cases that never went to trial. In absence of your ability to do that, it seems to me you are just
making assumptions as to what documentation we should have and where it should be. All
you can give us is the vague "public record".
Now you're:I am not speculating anything. I'm not the one pretending to know what the normal routine
a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
would be. You are. I'm asking you to establish that something is missing that should be there.
Until you can establish what the normal routine was at the time and that the DPD and/or the
prosecutor's office did not follow that routine, you have nothing but another empty excuse to
disregard the evidence that proves the guilt of your client.
b.) you're speculating that the forms exist but are hidden away in some secret location apart from the other forms in this case.Again, I'm not speculating anything. I don't know if they would have produced those forms
immediately after the evidence is gathered or done so later in preparation for the trial. I don't
pretend to know what the normal routine was. You are the one claiming there is something
missing that should be there. It is up to you to establish that the DPD and prosecutor's office
failed to do something they were required to do. It seems rather silly to me to believe that in the
most important criminal case in the history of Dallas, the cops and prosecutors would have
failed to do the most basic things to validate the evidence.
Yet, there's no evidence to support either of those wild speculations.
The wild speculations are all yours.
The point is that you have a reputation of making statements which are not true, and which you cannot prove.Irony alert. You are the one claiming the DPD failed to follow standard procedures yet you offer
no proof of what those standard procedures would have been. All you offer are your baseless
assertions. I have asked you basic questions regarding how and when these documents should
have been produced and where and how they would be stored once they were no longer needed.
You dodged each an every question.
You ask the silliest questions and even when you're given the answers, you can't accept them. You keep asking them over and over again.So you think it is silly of me to ask you to establish what the normal routine was for the
creation and filing of these documents.
You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.You have been repeating the same falsehoods in the 15 years I have participated in this forum
and probably long before that.
One time is an error, but when you intentionally tell the same falsehoods over and over again after being shown the truth, that makes you a liar.
This issue is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned.Gil is signaling he is about to bail out of this thread because he can't stand having his
assertions subjected to critical questioning.
You want keep beating it, that's up to you, but like a dead horse, it's not going anywhere.You and the rest of the conspiracy hobbyists have gone nowhere in 60 years and will continue
on your futile snipe hunt until the plant you on the other side of the grass.
The bottom line is that:Again you twist my words. I'm saying it is ridiculous to believe the DPD and prosecutors would
You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
not have produced that documentation had the case gone to trial.
Claims, in the end, you could not prove.You are the one claiming documentation is missing that should be there. You have failed badly
to prove that assertion.
YOU LOSE.
Gil declares victory prior to his retreat.
And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.Unable to take the heat, Gil leaves the kitchen. One of his wiser moves.
END OF STORY.
Yes it is. Until Gil wants to bring up his bogus claim in another thread.
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 7:08:37 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:and "custody" and "chains" but found nothing referencing them.
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:26:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:22:32 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:Could you be a bit more specific? If it is routine to store these records indefinitely for cases
Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
Where do you suppose those records should be?In the public record.
that don't go to trial, tell us where those records should be. If you don't know where those
records should be, you have no idea whether they are there or not.
The standard online copout when one doesn't have an answer. "I already posted it".Have you looked there to see if the records are there?Already answered in another thread.
At the time, this was a state crime. The forms would have been produced by local officialsDo you think such records are stored indefinitely?All the records in this case are stored indefinitely. It's called the National Archives.
and it would have been up to them to store them if necessary.
Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?
Already answered twice in two different threads.Another copout.
In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure thereSo tell us where to look for the records in those "case files".
are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.In what they call, "case files".
I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some
where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where
do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
Since the Warren Commission was a fact finding body and not a criminal trial, they did notAnswer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.In this case, the "case files" are the Warren Commission files.
require the chain-of-custody forms. There was no reason for them to store something they
never received. They used testimony from the investigators to establish the validity of the
evidence.
You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.Once again, you twist my words. I said that had the case gone to trial, the DPD and the
I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.
prosecutors would have produced them. You make the assumption that those documents
would have been prepared at the time the evidence was gathered. You have no idea if that
was the normal routine or not. The documentation would not have been required until the
case went to trial. It is rather silly to assume it would have been done during the first few
days following the assassination. That's why I am asking you all these questions. I am asking
you establish what the normal routine was for creating and storing the documentation for
cases that never went to trial. In absence of your ability to do that, it seems to me you are just
making assumptions as to what documentation we should have and where it should be. All
you can give us is the vague "public record".
Now you're:I am not speculating anything. I'm not the one pretending to know what the normal routine
a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
would be. You are. I'm asking you to establish that something is missing that should be there.
Until you can establish what the normal routine was at the time and that the DPD and/or the
prosecutor's office did not follow that routine, you have nothing but another empty excuse to
disregard the evidence that proves the guilt of your client.
b.) you're speculating that the forms exist but are hidden away in some secret location apart from the other forms in this case.Again, I'm not speculating anything. I don't know if they would have produced those forms
immediately after the evidence is gathered or done so later in preparation for the trial. I don't
pretend to know what the normal routine was. You are the one claiming there is something
missing that should be there. It is up to you to establish that the DPD and prosecutor's office
failed to do something they were required to do. It seems rather silly to me to believe that in the
most important criminal case in the history of Dallas, the cops and prosecutors would have
failed to do the most basic things to validate the evidence.
Yet, there's no evidence to support either of those wild speculations.
The wild speculations are all yours.
The point is that you have a reputation of making statements which are not true, and which you cannot prove.Irony alert. You are the one claiming the DPD failed to follow standard procedures yet you offer
no proof of what those standard procedures would have been. All you offer are your baseless
assertions. I have asked you basic questions regarding how and when these documents should
have been produced and where and how they would be stored once they were no longer needed.
You dodged each an every question.
You ask the silliest questions and even when you're given the answers, you can't accept them. You keep asking them over and over again.So you think it is silly of me to ask you to establish what the normal routine was for the
creation and filing of these documents.
You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.You have been repeating the same falsehoods in the 15 years I have participated in this forum
and probably long before that.
One time is an error, but when you intentionally tell the same falsehoods over and over again after being shown the truth, that makes you a liar.
This issue is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned.Gil is signaling he is about to bail out of this thread because he can't stand having his
assertions subjected to critical questioning.
You want keep beating it, that's up to you, but like a dead horse, it's not going anywhere.You and the rest of the conspiracy hobbyists have gone nowhere in 60 years and will continue
on your futile snipe hunt until the plant you on the other side of the grass.
The bottom line is that:Again you twist my words. I'm saying it is ridiculous to believe the DPD and prosecutors would
You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
not have produced that documentation had the case gone to trial.
Claims, in the end, you could not prove.You are the one claiming documentation is missing that should be there. You have failed badly
to prove that assertion.
YOU LOSE.
Gil declares victory prior to his retreat.
And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.Unable to take the heat, Gil leaves the kitchen. One of his wiser moves.
END OF STORY.
Yes it is. Until Gil wants to bring up his bogus claim in another thread.Here are transcripts of the Jack Ruby trial including motions/statements. I'll guess that any "forms" that they used would show up here, would be mentioned? e.g,. re his revolver, et cetera. But I don't see any mention of them. I searched for "forms"
Here: https://tinyurl.com/2musdedjWith more transcripts here: https://tinyurl.com/58dxeubs
Maybe they would they show up/be referenced in discovery but not during the trial?
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< the usual stupid shit deleted >
Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< the usual stupid shit deleted >
Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?Looks like Gil is turning into a Ben Holmes wannabe. He deletes the stuff he has no answer for.
This is why Gil is never going to go anywhere with his silly hobby. People who have strong
positions welcome critical questioning. Answering the tough questions enhances the strength
of one's arguments. Gil takes the opposite approach. He deletes the tough questions or just
declares victory and bails out of the discussion.
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:00:19 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:motorcycle escort, follow-up vehicles, etc. as best as he could, calculating the whereabouts of witnesses, the various automobiles in the procession, etc. The dude leaned CT, but what impressed me was his pro-research attitude; he INVITED comments on his
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: < the usual stupid shit deleted >
Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?Looks like Gil is turning into a Ben Holmes wannabe. He deletes the stuff he has no answer for.
This is why Gil is never going to go anywhere with his silly hobby. People who have strongThere was a guy at .john's site right before John passed who put together a really interesting animation using all of the known film and photo clips of the motorcade as it snaked through Dealey Plaza at 1230pm 118/22/63, and he positioned the limo,
positions welcome critical questioning. Answering the tough questions enhances the strength
of one's arguments. Gil takes the opposite approach. He deletes the tough questions or just
declares victory and bails out of the discussion.
Can anyone imagine Gil doing something similar with his so-called research? I have NEVER seen lazier people than Gil or Ben. It's really astounding. Why doesn't Gil send an email to the 6th Floor Museum on the subject? Why doesn't Gil track down peoplein Dallas knowledgeable about the procedures that have him so flummoxed and listen to what they say? He has no clue about these so-called evidence chain of custody forms and expects his critics to do his legwork.
Lazy, lazy, lazy.
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:00:19 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:motorcycle escort, follow-up vehicles, etc. as best as he could, calculating the whereabouts of witnesses, the various automobiles in the procession, etc. The dude leaned CT, but what impressed me was his pro-research attitude; he INVITED comments on his
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: < the usual stupid shit deleted >
Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?Looks like Gil is turning into a Ben Holmes wannabe. He deletes the stuff he has no answer for.
This is why Gil is never going to go anywhere with his silly hobby. People who have strongThere was a guy at .john's site right before John passed who put together a really interesting animation using all of the known film and photo clips of the motorcade as it snaked through Dealey Plaza at 1230pm 118/22/63, and he positioned the limo,
positions welcome critical questioning. Answering the tough questions enhances the strength
of one's arguments. Gil takes the opposite approach. He deletes the tough questions or just
declares victory and bails out of the discussion.
Can anyone imagine Gil doing something similar with his so-called research? I have NEVER seen lazier people than Gil or Ben. It's really astounding. Why doesn't Gil send an email to the 6th Floor Museum on the subject? Why doesn't Gil track down peoplein Dallas knowledgeable about the procedures that have him so flummoxed and listen to what they say? He has no clue about these so-called evidence chain of custody forms and expects his critics to do his legwork.
Lazy, lazy, lazy.Talk about lazy! You can't be bothered to find out who it was that you are "remembering!" Mark Tyler, moron.
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< the usual stupid shit deleted >
Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:00:19?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:Looks like Gil is turning into a Ben Holmes wannabe. He deletes the stuff he has no answer for.
< the usual stupid shit deleted >
Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
This is why Gil is never going to go anywhere with his silly hobby. People who have strong
positions welcome critical questioning. Answering the tough questions enhances the strength
of one's arguments. Gil takes the opposite approach. He deletes the tough questions or just
declares victory and bails out of the discussion.
Still nothing about "forms", et cetera. None I can find.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 116:07:22 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,176 |